Ulas Albayrak wrote:
Unfortunately, the switch to Windows is out of my hands. If it were up
to me I'd stick with BSD. When you say postgres on Windows is known
for its "mediocre performance", do you mean it's slower or buggy? Or
both?
Three examples that have varying proportions of slow and
On 15 Jun 2010, at 9:21, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Le 15/06/2010 09:18, Ulas Albayrak a écrit :
>> Unfortunately, the switch to Windows is out of my hands. If it were up
>> to me I'd stick with BSD. When you say postgres on Windows is known
>> for its "mediocre performance", do you mean it's slow
Le 15/06/2010 09:18, Ulas Albayrak a écrit :
> Unfortunately, the switch to Windows is out of my hands. If it were up
> to me I'd stick with BSD. When you say postgres on Windows is known
> for its "mediocre performance", do you mean it's slower or buggy? Or
> both?
>
Slower. If it were buggy, it
Unfortunately, the switch to Windows is out of my hands. If it were up
to me I'd stick with BSD. When you say postgres on Windows is known
for its "mediocre performance", do you mean it's slower or buggy? Or
both?
/Ulas
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 201
On 14 Jun 2010, at 22:22, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Is there are good reason to go to Windows instead of a new BSD system?
> Windows is a known mediocre performer for postgres.
I was wondering that too. I assume the good reasons wear ties.
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the tree
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Ulas Albayrak wrote:
> The database is < 10GB and currently on a postgres version 8.2.15 on a
> BSD system and moving to postgres version 8.4.4 on a windows 2008
> server. The adding of data is continuous but in small quantities,
> totaling at about 20MB a day.
Is
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Ulas Albayrak wrote:
> OK,
>
> I see. Does this mean I need to install Slony-I 1.x on both systems or
> is different versions of Slony-I, say a 2.x and a 1.x, compatible? The
> reason I'm asking is because the new server db will be part of a
> permanent postgres re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
...
> After your post I had a look at Slony-I, which, according to it web
> page, requires postgres 8.3 or later, so I guess that won't work. That
> leaves Bucardo: will it work on a Windows system?
The daemon itself cannot run on a Windows sys
On 14/06/2010 14:33, Ulas Albayrak wrote:
> OK,
>
> I see. Does this mean I need to install Slony-I 1.x on both systems or
> is different versions of Slony-I, say a 2.x and a 1.x, compatible? The
> reason I'm asking is because the new server db will be part of a
> permanent postgres replication sy
OK,
I see. Does this mean I need to install Slony-I 1.x on both systems or
is different versions of Slony-I, say a 2.x and a 1.x, compatible? The
reason I'm asking is because the new server db will be part of a
permanent postgres replication system in the future and installing a
newer verision of
On 14/06/2010 14:09, Ulas Albayrak wrote:
> After your post I had a look at Slony-I, which, according to it web
> page, requires postgres 8.3 or later, so I guess that won't work. That
> leaves Bucardo: will it work on a Windows system?
AIUI, the Slony-I 2.x branch requires PG 8.3+, but the 1.x b
The database is < 10GB and currently on a postgres version 8.2.15 on a
BSD system and moving to postgres version 8.4.4 on a windows 2008
server. The adding of data is continuous but in small quantities,
totaling at about 20MB a day.
After your post I had a look at Slony-I, which, according to it w
12 matches
Mail list logo
