| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
PostgreSQL 8.4 releasedPostgreSQL 8.4 releasedPosted Jul 1, 2009 23:20 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: PostgreSQL 8.4 released by Cyberax Parent article: PostgreSQL 8.4 released
I've had friends use the MySQL replication extensivly (admittedly a couple of years ago), and it works for some definitions of 'works'
there are many horror stories around about MySQL replication eating people's data. being 'built-in' doesn't eliminate that possibility.
there are many different ways to do replication and failover for databases, each has advantages and disadvantages. Postgres (through these external projects) has most of the range covered, the hit-standby,synchronous-write mode is missing, and that is what is going to be added in 8.5
it may be that once this gets in, some of the other solutions that need patches will ask to be added as well, but so far it's been a case of trying to to imply that one solution is better than all the others by including it and not the others
most of the different replication solutions that are available for postgres are significantly better than all of the others, for a specific set of requirements.
(Log in to post comments)
PostgreSQL 8.4 released Posted Jul 1, 2009 23:53 UTC (Wed) by akumria (subscriber, #7773) [Link]
> there are many horror stories around about MySQL replication eating
> people's data. being 'built-in' doesn't eliminate that possibility.
google: "mysql replication horror story"
Presumably they would be so widely known that showing up in the first 10 hits on google is a reasonable test.
Hmm - which of those non-stories was the 'many' that you had in mind?
Anand
PostgreSQL 8.4 released Posted Jul 2, 2009 0:33 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
by your own criteria, postgres doesn't have problems with replication iether (just substatute postgres for mysql in your google search)
PostgreSQL 8.4 released Posted Jul 2, 2009 0:59 UTC (Thu) by akumria (subscriber, #7773) [Link]
No, I am not the one who said there were 'many horror stories' about MySQL replication.
Please do not weasel out of pointing out information that could be beneficial to those of us attempting to make a balanced consideration between the two.
If you have any stories you can point to -- let us know; I would appreciate the information. It would help to inform my opinion about MySQL and the merits (or otherwise) of it's replication.
Otherwise your comment just serves to inform my opinion about hyperbole on the Internet and its continuing rise.
(pun intended).
Thanks,
PostgreSQL 8.4 released Posted Jul 2, 2009 4:09 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I have waited many long nights while sysadmins that I know have had to restore mySQL databases from backup or re-clone replicas from the original on mySQL clusters. I was seeing repeated cases where the replication stops, but claims that it is still going, cases where it would corrupt a copy to the point where it was easier and faster to recreate it, as well as issues with the daisy-chain approach to replication where the replicas downstream of the box that first had a problem suffered as well (sometimes recoverably once the problem box was fixed, other times not so)
this was without any system crashes
no, I don't know of Internet links that document this.
my prior post was intended to make the point that doing a google search for "mysql replication horror story" and not finding a real one in the first ten hits has very little, if anything to do with the quality or lack of quality of mysql (or postgres) replication.
I never like to hear of anyone loosing their data, but to then make the claim that if the replication tool was built-in instead of a seperate project it would not have happened, and that mysql 'just works' as an example of this always being true is just not a valid chain of logic.
PostgreSQL 8.4 released Posted Jul 2, 2009 18:00 UTC (Thu) by yoe (subscriber, #25743) [Link]
That's not how you search for horror stories on google, and you know it.
"Results 1-10 of about 122,000 for mysql replication broken (0.60 seconds)"
Then again, what with mysql being a horrible toy, clustering being broken is hardly a suprise.
|
|
||||||||||||