4 ms·

I would not have risked my business (or budget) on Postgres 8, even with Slony-I. My appreciation for its well-written code and thoughtful architecture simply d

I would not have risked my business (or budget) on Postgres 8, even with Slony-I. My appreciation for its well-written code and thoughtful architecture simply did not outweigh what it lacked for a reliable operations experience. MySQL foot guns were mostly under control by 2010, and it was operationally efficient to manage a cluster of MySQL servers in diverse configurations with mostly-known boundaries to what could go wrong. The Postgres foundations are the same today, but what you can build on top is very different today than it was pre-9.x.

sph 3y ago
I operated MySQL clusters in the late 2000s. I still am surprised how many hoops you have to jump through to set up replication in PostgreSQL than what you could do - out of the box - with MySQL 15 years ago.
Sesse__ 3y ago
> I would not have risked my business (or budget) on Postgres 8, even with Slony-I. This assumes you need replication, though. You can get pretty far without it, especially given how wide hardware you can get now. > MySQL foot guns were mostly under control by 2010 Eh. :-) I think you would have to specify which footguns in particular.
- turtles3 3y ago
  Replication can be for HA, not just for scale. All depends on your business requirements. Also replication can be good for other operational reasons, such as zero downtime major version upgrades. Again depends on the business need/expectations.
- tomnipotent 3y ago
  If you're doing tens of millions in revenue and the RDBMS is critical to your operations, I'm a firm believer you need replication. Keep in mind this was the era of spinning rust and a day-old backup could take hours to restore even with a SAN/DAS. A replica was for more than just distributing load, it was for resilience to keep the business healthy and avoid a SPOF. Risks to the business are more important to me than my enthusiasm for a technology or product.

sph 3y ago

I operated MySQL clusters in the late 2000s. I still am surprised how many hoops you have to jump through to set up replication in PostgreSQL than what you could do - out of the box - with MySQL 15 years ago.

Sesse__ 3y ago

> I would not have risked my business (or budget) on Postgres 8, even with Slony-I. This assumes you need replication, though. You can get pretty far without it, especially given how wide hardware you can get now. > MySQL foot guns were mostly under control by 2010 Eh. :-) I think you would have to specify which footguns in particular.

turtles3 3y ago
Replication can be for HA, not just for scale. All depends on your business requirements. Also replication can be good for other operational reasons, such as zero downtime major version upgrades. Again depends on the business need/expectations.
tomnipotent 3y ago
If you're doing tens of millions in revenue and the RDBMS is critical to your operations, I'm a firm believer you need replication. Keep in mind this was the era of spinning rust and a day-old backup could take hours to restore even with a SAN/DAS. A replica was for more than just distributing load, it was for resilience to keep the business healthy and avoid a SPOF. Risks to the business are more important to me than my enthusiasm for a technology or product.