Hi,
Andrew Hammond wrote:
> I can see value in documenting what replication systems are known to
work (for some definition of work) with a given release in the
documentation for that release. Five years down the road when I'm
trying to implement replication for a client who's somehow locked into
postgres 8.2 (for whatever reason), it would be very helpful to know
that slony1.2 is an option. I don't know if this is sufficient
justification.
Please keep in mind, that most replication solutions (that I know of)
are quite independent from the PostgreSQL version used. Thus,
documenting which version of PostgreSQL can be used with which version
of a replication system should better be covered in the documentation of
the replication system. Otherwise you would have to update the
PostgreSQL documentation for new releases of your favorite replication
system - which seems to lead to confusion.
Including a separate page on the history of postgres replication to
date also makes some sense, at least to me. It should be relatively
easy to maintain.
I agree that having such a 'replication guide for users of PostgreSQL'
is a good thing to have. But I think not much of that should be part of
the official PostgreSQL documentation - mainly because the replication
solutions are not part of PostgreSQL.
Regards
Markus
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
