Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > > > > Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining > > > > > why > > > > > there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something > > > > > right now, but I can do it later tonight if no one beats me to it. > > > > > > > > I thought that was implied in the early paragraph about why there are > > > > many solutions. > > > > > > I think we should explicitely spell it out, especially considering how > > > many times people ask about it. How about... > > > > > > This multitude of choices is why PostgreSQL does not ship with a > > > replication solution by default; any bundled solution would only > > > satisfy a subset of replication needs. > > > > The problem is that we do have some solutions in our code, like doing > > data partitioning in the application, warm standby, or using a shared > > disk for failover, so how do we spell that out? I say there are > > multiple solutions, but I don't see how I can say that all are external > > and not included. > > Good point... how about this?
Sorry, that is too preachy, and I have the extensibility issue addressed in the commerical solutions section. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster