3 ms·
My general rule: always pick the boring major RDBMS - unless you have a specific reason not to.
by jpalomaki 9y ago
My general rule: always pick the boring major RDBMS - unless you have a specific reason not to.
- kodablah 9y agoHigh availability with automatic failover is a pretty common reason. To do this with a "boring major RDBMS" removes the boring part and requires leaving the beaten path of the core RDBMS product anyways (or paying lots of money). If multi-master w/ automatic scaling and failover were a first class feature of these boring major RDBMSs, you could have the best of all worlds.
- AgentME 9y agoYeah, I've got a few projects that I'm not doing much where scaling would be an issue, but I really want easy multi-master. I want to be able to have a few database servers and be able to take one offline for maintenance (or because of mishap) with minimal fanfare, without it causing downtime, and without it feeling like I'm performing open heart surgery. There's plenty of ways to fuck up a manual switchover, and I don't want to discover more of them again in production. Technically, I don't really need multi-master, a "standard RDBMS" with automatic failover would probably fit the bill, but I could not for the life of me figure out any standard (and free) way of doing that for mysql/mariadb or postgresql.