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 the
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 04:42:17PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> > Bruce, I've read Your documentation and I was left a bit with a feeling
> > that it's a bit too generic. It's almost as if it could be about just about
> > any major database, not PostgreSQL specific. I fee
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > Most people didn't want a list because there is no way to keep it
> > current in the docs, and a secondary web site was suggested for the
> > list.
>
> So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work.
Yes.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL P
Bruce,
> Most people didn't want a list because there is no way to keep it
> current in the docs, and a secondary web site was suggested for the
> list.
So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
-
Dawid Kuroczko wrote:
> Bruce, I've read Your documentation and I was left a bit with a feeling
> that it's a bit too generic. It's almost as if it could be about just about
> any major database, not PostgreSQL specific. I feel that, when I'm
> reading PostgreSQL docs I would like to know how to
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand
> > what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think
> > most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation,
> > though I have a few as examples.
>
> Do the
Bruce,
> It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand
> what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think
> most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation,
> though I have a few as examples.
Do they? I've seen no discussion of the
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > > > ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
>
> I'm still not seeing anything in this patch that tells users where they can
> get replication solutions for PostgreSQL, either OSS or commercial.
It isn't designed for that. It is designed f
Richard Troy wrote:
>
> > Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
> >
> > ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
> >
>
> ...Read the document, as promissed...
>
> First paragraph, "(fail over)" is inconsistent with title, "failover", as
> are oth
Bruce,
> > > ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
I'm still not seeing anything in this patch that tells users where they can
get replication solutions for PostgreSQL, either OSS or commercial.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
--
Alexey Klyukin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A typo:
> ("a write to any server has to be _propogated_")
> s/propogated/propagated
Thanks, fixed.
---
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Here is a new replication documentation section I want t
David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
>
> > Can we name the chapter "Fail-over, Load-Balancing and Replication
> > Options"? That would fit everything and contain the necessary buzz words.
> ...
>
> > IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Can we name the chapter "Fail-over, Load-Balancing and Replication
> Options"? That would fit everything and contain the necessary buzz words.
...
> IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a synchronous replication for a
>
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
> >>> in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
> >>> can be more easily up
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
>>> in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
>>> can be more easily updated.
>> I agree with that. If we
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
> > in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
> > can be more easily updated.
>
> I agree with that. If we have statements about
Hi,
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on
everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use
terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably.
Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability
s
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> > I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term
> > 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a
> > well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change.
> > I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in
> > our documentation.
>
> I support your POV and vote for not including any pointers
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
>> in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
>> can be more easily updated.
>
> I agree with that. If we have statements about ot
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
> in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
> can be more easily updated.
I agree with that. If we have statements about other projects in our
docs,
>>> they change their business model, if and if.
>> That is no different than the open source offerings. We have
>> had several open source offerings that have died over the
>> years. Replicator, for example has always been Replicator and
>> has been around longer than any of the current replic
> > I also wrote Bruce about that.
> >
> > It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions
> > (rather than they doing so by other vehicles) you will
> always happen
> > to be an 'updater' to the docs if they change their product
> lines, if
> > they change their business mode
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I would think that companies that sell closed-source solutions for
> PostgreSQL would be modest enough not to push their own agenda for the
> documentation. I think they should just sit back and hope others
> suggest it.
>
> [ Josh Berkus recently left Green Plum for Sun. ]
I have added this text:
Commercial Solutions
Because PostgreSQL is open source and easily extended, a number of
companies have taken PostgreSQL and created commercial closed-source
solutions with unique failover, replication, a
I would think that companies that sell closed-source solutions for
PostgreSQL would be modest enough not to push their own agenda for the
documentation. I think they should just sit back and hope others
suggest it.
[ Josh Berkus recently left Green Plum for Sun. ]
--
Cesar Suga wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I also wrote Bruce about that.
>
> It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions (rather
> than they doing so by other vehicles) you will always happen to be an
> 'updater' to the docs if they change their product lines, if they change
> their busines
Hi, Cesar,
Cesar Suga wrote:
> If people (who read the documentation) professionally work with
> PostgreSQL, they may already have been briefed by those commercial
> offerings in some way.
>
> I think only the source and its tightly coupled (read: can compile along
> with, free as PostgreSQL) com
>> A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions
>> that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just
>> because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql
>> and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document.
>
> OK, does
>
> I am not inclined to add commercial offerings. If people wanted
> commercial database offerings, they can get them from companies that
> advertize. People are coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions,
> and I think mentioning commercial ones doesn't make sense.
>
> If we are to add th
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term
> 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a
> well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to
> avoid that term.
> I
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:22:25PM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> >functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I
> >just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what t
> I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be
> mentioning commercial solutions.
I think maybe the PostgreSQL documentation should be careful about
trying to list a "complete list" of commercial *or* free solutions.
Instead linking to something on the main website or on techdocs that can
Hi,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change.
I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in
our documentation.
I support your POV and vote for not including any pointers to commercial
extensions in the official docu
34 matches
Mail list logo
