3 ms·

replication story?

• mechanical_fish 18y ago
  My understanding is that this is a very well-chosen phrase. If you check out this page: http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/MySQL_vs_PostgreSQL#Partitioning http://www.wikivs.com/wiki/MySQL_vs_PostgreSQL#Partitioning ... you'll see that the MySQL section on replication has a short, consistent, confident story: MySQL ships with replication support. ... while the PostgreSQL section offers an excuse, a list of choices, an explanation, a caveat, and a promise: PostgreSQL is modular by design, and replication is not in the core. There are several packages that allow replication in PostgreSQL: [List of packages here] It is a common misconception that these "third-party packages" are somehow less well integrated. Slony, for example, was designed and built by Jan Weick, a PostgreSQL core team member... ...However, Slony is considerably slower and uses more resources than MySQL's built-in replication, as it uses SQL and triggers rather than binary log shipping to replicate the data across servers. That may make it less suitable for larger cluster deployments with high performance demands... Recently, the PostgreSQL core team has announced that basic replication is planned as part of the 8.4 release. The moral of this story is: Both databases support replication! But their marketing (their "replication story") is different. MySQL has superior FUD-proof marketing while PostgreSQL offers you choices up front -- which is often a marketing mistake, because it's easy for your opponents to cherry-pick one choice and then FUD it to death (see above), and because people who aren't experts generally get paralyzed by an excess of choices (the pros! the cons! Who understands all that stuff?!) and will often leap at the chance to escape paralysis if you offer them a batteries-included option. See Schwartz, Barry: The Paradox of Choice. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_par...