PostgreSQL Inc. Open Sources Replication Solution

Martin Marvinski writes "PostgreSQL Inc, the commercial company providing replication software and support for PostgreSQL, open sourced their eRServer replication product. This makes PostgreSQL one step closer to being able to replace Oracle as the de facto RDBMS standard. More information can be found on PostgreSQL's website."

Comments

mySQL gets more publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Check monster.com. More companies look for people with mySQL experiences. Check the book stores. You will see more books about mySQL. Even though PostgreSQL has more features and is more promising and powerful, mySQL gets more publicity. This means that mySQL will be the open source database that will replace most commercial databases. It's sad but true.

Re:Postgre sucks!

[delta407]

Troll, but I'll bite.

it doesn't support transactions

Ever heard of InnoDB? MySQL lets you choose -- on a table-by-table basis -- exactly what parts of your application need to support transactions, foreign keys, etc.

corrupts at every chance

Odd, neither Slashdot nor Yahoo! Finance seem to be having corruption problems...

is not scalable

Adding extra memory, CPUs, or slave servers obviously has no impact on server performance. (Yes, replication is... clumsy, at best, but depending on the application, it can work quite well.)

a resource hog

Compared to Postgres?

eRServer and PG Replicator

[juahonen]

This is indeed good news, as free software always is. But eRServer can only operate in single-master mode, which makes it unsuitable for high-availability kind of work. Single-master systems are good for load-balancing on installations where most of the queries to the DB are SELECTs.

eRServer comes a bit late. We already have PostgreSQL Replicator, which is multi-master. Unfortunately PG Replicator is not supported anymore. The latest version it can work with is 7.1, and the project's latest news are timestamped nearly two years ago.

Is this only a partial solution?

[MarkSwanson]

Please let me know if I'm wrong...

I visited the site, and the commercial site too and it seems this is only simple replication with the master being a single point of failure. F.E.

1. update a row in the master
2. master replicates the update to multiple slaves
3. clients perform select operations against the slaves (nice load balancing opportunity)
4. the master crashes
5. No one can write until the master comes back online.

Here are the steps that seem to be missing:
6. the slaves elect a new master
7. if the old master comes back up it must realize a new master is present and become a slave.
8. clients using JDBC would need some mechanism of finding out what the new master is when an update/insert/delete fails.

Cheers.