On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:41:17PM -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > I'll just chime in here really quick - I use MySQL because it had native > replication. The replication solution for postgres felt kind of hackish > to me when I looked at it, and I felt more comfortable with something > that didn't look like an afterthought. (With odd warnings/procedures for > upgrades.) That said, I haven't had a problem with MySQL. I'm sure > postgres is great and all, but I need to do stuff like hardware load > balancing across multiple slaves. > > Of course this may have changed since I first looked at it, but that's > why I went down the MySQL path years ago. > Fair enough. I know that replication has been a missing feature for Postgres for a while. Though, I am not sure what progress has been made in that respect. As I have not needed it, in any case, I am not sure how Postgres and MySQL compare on that count. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature