3 ms·
Honestly the deal killer for me with Postgres has always been replication. I believe they're rolling out a replication package as part of the standard distribu
by rit 17y ago
Honestly the deal killer for me with Postgres has always been replication. I believe they're rolling out a replication package as part of the standard distribution soonish, but previously it was stated as "not a core feature".
There were one or two commercial replication packages which I didn't get a chance to play with, but the "standard" replication for Postgres, Slony, is incredibly difficult to deal with. By comparision, MySQL's replication tends to "just work" (easier configuration, easier to diagnose & fix problems, setup, tweak, etc).
It also had a lot to do with marketing and buzz; Postgres seems to have been happy to chug along in the background while a lot of big sites like Slashdot were pushing the tool they used. Keep in mind originally MySQL was not GPL and did not ship with RedHat, the default was Postgres. I recall when MySQL changed their licensing and RedHat started shipping them, it signified a pretty rapid change in what people were using.
All things considered, everytime I use Postgres I'm fairly impressed. I've been able to pretty painlessly migrate Oracle based systems directly to Postgres with it's PL/SQL compatibility, and it's Python stored procedure stuff is useful.
- prodigal_erik 17y ago... except when MySQL's replication just fails. On more than one occasion, our DBAs have had to ask engineering what to do about records which differ between the master and some slaves. Something about updates failing at the slaves after they committed on the master, which as far as I'm concerned shouldn't ever, ever, ever be possible.
- rit 17y agoOh, I don't disagree MySQL's replication is a pain in the ass as well - but the barrier to entry is much lower and from the outward appearance (e.g. looking at it for the first time) it looks easy and functional. Slony on the other hand appears daunting from the first look.