Re: No future for DB2

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:42f0bf29$0$11950$5a62ac22_at_per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Nope. I wrote:
> <quote>He's correct in that he's mistaken. Snapshot replication
> (basic replication) *is* available in Standard Edition, 9i.
> Advanced replication (master2master) is only in EE.
> 10g might have changed that, but that will be another
> reason for people not to upgrade...</quote>
>
> and MP butted in with some stuff about how Oracle did this
> or that in comparison to some other enterprise whatever
> product I couldn't care less about.

No Noons, I responded with why I didn't consider snapshop replication of any kind to be replication. A copy maybe, but not replication. I never tried to compare anything.

And I quote from my prior postiong...

"Does Oracle snapshot replication

1. replicate all of the trigger activity performed on the original table
2. distinguish between updates on a row and inserts/deletes on the same row? (If not, then cascade deletes are not properly performed)
3. properly handle cascading updates

This is why I generally don't consider snapshot copies as being replication. They generally only replicate the data, and not the engine logic associated with the base table."

And you responded with your quote of "If I understand your question correctly, that is not possible
with ANY replication in any database version."

I simply stated why I don't consider snapshot replication to be replication. Point in time copy, maybe. But not replication.

Oh, I guess we could argue that it is a form of replication, assuming that the source data is static. But otherwise, the replica is only a replica until the next update of the source table. After that, it is a stale copy. Received on Wed Aug 03 2005 - 08:31:57 CDT