3 ms·
Replication, failover and high availability are complicated matters. I believe there are other SQL databases that may be said to handle this better than Postgre
by drdaeman 7y ago
Replication, failover and high availability are complicated matters. I believe there are other SQL databases that may be said to handle this better than PostgreSQL.
At the very least, CockroachDB is much simpler to set up and manage. Cannot vouch for its stability and complexity of abnormal emergency recoveries, though - haven't used it long enough, only had simplest outages (that it had handled flawlessly).
- xdanger 7y agoI've been following YugabyteDB ( https://www.yugabyte.com/ https://www.yugabyte.com/ ) with interest for similar reasons. It's build on postgresql so it supports more features than CockroachDB. They just forked PG on top of their clustered document store. And the newest version (2.1) is production ready (their words). Just haven't had the reason to dive in yet, but seems good. Their PR department just isn't as good as CockroachDBs one.
- ksec 7y ago>Replication, failover and high availability are complicated matters. I wonder why Postgre hasn't improved in these areas and instead leaving it to third party solution. I mean every year these few points are still listed as something that flavours MySQL.
- nicoburns 7y agoIt might be partly because Postgres is largely developed by the providers of "3rd-party" solutions for features like this. You could see it as an open-core model of sorts.
- yxhuvud 7y agoWhy are you saying they have not improved? That is flat out false - postgres provides a lot better tools for this now than 10 years ago. They still leave a lot of the plumbing to third parties, but they are now at least giving those third parties a lot better tools than they used to.
- ksec 7y agoI think a more accurate way to put it, why isn't there any default solution? But I guess the Open Core model another comment pointed out makes sense.