On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 08:38 -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> Any questions?
Any reason not to use MySQL replication instead of doing the dump
between boxes (I don't know Postgres, but I assume it has something
Just wanting the resources to be dedicated to each DB platform or use
it more as a backup instead of a hot failover?
Aside from the resource issues (running two dbs on the same box is
competing for the same resources) I've done this before and it was a bit
harder than it should be. Mysql has a tendency to stop replicating
between master and slave. Then you either have to put the server into
read-only and rsync or interpret the mysql errors and back out/repair
the offending mysql statements/tables.
Postgres was more stable as a warm-standby but the server was less
loaded. (terminology is slightly different because with postgres, you
are performing a continuous recovery so you can't use the standby as a
read-only replica while it is pulling the replica data.) But it was
much more effort to setup. Also, this requires postgres 8.2 and I think
we're only going to upgrade to 8.1.