Re: Replication
От | Christopher Browne |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Replication |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m3oepklq51.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Replication (Pailloncy Jean-Gérard <pailloncy@ifrance.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
Quoth uwe@oss4u.com ("Uwe C. Schroeder"): > I concur. However the problem SAP had some 18years ago when they > invented their system were massive differences between > databases. The scope they had in mind didn't allow for whole > database layers to be redundant just for the sake of being able to > talk to several database engines - ergo they wrote one layer and > omitted using vendor dependant database features. Nowadays most > relevant databases are pretty compatible when it comes to > constraints, so if you stick to the basics you should be fine now. One of the issues was always that of locking. Different systems still have different semantics. -- output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/nonrdbms.html I've implemented a parser combinator library in Generic C#, and indeed what is pretty clear in a functional language looks extremely scientific in an object-oriented one. -- Peter Sestoft
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: