On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
...snip...
>
> > Data partitioning is often done within a single database on a single
> > server and therefore, as a concept, has nothing whatsoever to do with
> > different servers. Similarly, the second paragraph of this section is
>
> Uh, why would
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:06:13PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the techdocs system won't support a url like the one above,
> rather you'll end up with something more like the following
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs.54 which is the "GUI Tools Guide"
> (which is link
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
On Thursday 26 October 2006 10:45, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 05:46:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would
> > > work.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I like that idea, but I think that the URL needs t
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.
> The documentation comes with the open source tarball.
Yuck.
>
> I would welcome if the docs point to an unofficial wiki (maintained
> externally from authoritative PostgreSQL developers) or a website
> listing them and giving a brief of each solution.
>
> postgresql.org already does this for e
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, 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
Hi,
A typo:
("a write to any server has to be _propogated_")
s/propogated/propagated
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
Comments welcomed.
--
Regards,
Alexey Klyukin
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
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 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 tim
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 lat
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
With no new additions submitted today, I have moved my text into our
SGML documentation:
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/failover.html
Please let me know what additional changes are needed.
---
bruce wro
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 05:46:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work.
>
> Yes.
I like that idea, but I think that the URL needs to be decided upon,
needs to be stable, and needs to be put into the docs. (
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
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
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
On 10/25/06, Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
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
> 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 other spots throughout the document. The wh
Totally agree. The docs will tend to outlive whatever projects or
websites they mention. Best to not bake that into stone.
-Casey
On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be
mentioning commercial solutions.
I think maybe the Post
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
>
Hi Hannu, everyone,
I apologize for not having read the document in question - will do
shortly. My comments are brought about by the dialogue I read on list this
morning...
> > Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
> >
> > ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypa
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. ]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM
> > > > To: Hannu Krosing
> > > > Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development
> > > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > O
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
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 to include.
Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL?
> 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
half Of Bruce Momjian
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM
> > > To: Hannu Krosing
> > > Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development
> > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
> > >
> > >
> >
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 business model, if and if.
If you c
On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't
worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies.
I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming
to PostgreSQL for _good_ solution
Steve Atkins wrote:
> > If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't
> > worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies.
>
> I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming
> to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions.
>
> I want to see what solutions might
On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Bruce,
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 think you should ment
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> >> 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 think you should mention the postgresql-only ones,
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
>> 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 think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just briefly with a
> link. Bizg
Bruce,
> 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 think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just briefly with a
link. Bizgres MPP, ExtenDB, uni/cluster, a
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to
> > admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how
> > to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some
> > knowledge and require a more or less complex
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM
> > To: Hannu Krosing
> > Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
> >
> >
> > OK, I ha
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to
> admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how
> to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some
> knowledge and require a more or less complex ins
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.
---
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-10-24
Bruce,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM
> To: Hannu Krosing
> Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication d
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
AFAIK Continuent's product fails that test...
To my knowledge, p/cluster only works with PostgreSQL but I could be wrong.
p/cluster was the old name for the PostgreSQL specific version. It's been
rebranded as uni/cluster and they have versions f
OK, I have updated the URL. Please let me know how you like it.
---
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-10-24 kell 00:20, kirjutas Bruce Momjian:
> > Here is a new replication documentation section I want to a
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:33:03PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>
If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be
specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:33:03PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be
> >> specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling
> >>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:39:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Query Broadcast Replication
> ---
>
> This involves sending write queries to multiple servers. Read-only
> queries can be sent to a single server because there is no need for all
> servers to process it. Th
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:33 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>
If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be
specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:33 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be
> >> specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling
> >> doesn't
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be
>> specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling
>> doesn't go in).
>
> ...and how do you define PostgreSQL exactly?
I replicat
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be
> specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling
> doesn't go in).
...and how do you define PostgreSQL exactly?
--
Simon Riggs
Enterpr
Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 12:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to
>>> admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how
>>> to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 12:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to
> > admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how
> > to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some
> > knowledge an
> Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to
> admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how
> to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some
> knowledge and require a more or less complex installation and
> configuration
Hello Josh,
Josh Berkus wrote:
Hmmm ... while the primer on different types of replication is fine, I
think what users were really looking for is a listing of the different
replication solutions which are available for PostgreSQL and how to get
them.
Well, let's see what we have:
* Shared D
Bruce,
> Here is my first draft of a new replication section for our
> documentation. I am looking for any comments.
Hmmm ... while the primer on different types of replication is fine, I
think what users were really looking for is a listing of the different
replication solutions which are ava
Hannu Krosing wrote:
I think the "official" term for this kind of "replication" is
Shared-Nothing Clustering.
Well, that's just another distinction for clusters. Most of the time
it's between Shared-Disk vs. Shared-Nothing. You could also see the very
Big Irons as a Shared-Everything Cluster.
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-10-24 kell 00:20, kirjutas Bruce Momjian:
> Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
>
> ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
This is how data partitioning is currently described there
> Data Partitioning
> -
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:
ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication
Comments welcomed.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your back
Here is my first draft of a new replication section for our
documentation. I am looking for any comments.
---
Replication
===
Database replication allows multiple computers to work together, making
them appear as a
FYI, I have started working on a replication section for our 8.2
documentation. I will post a draft copy as soon as I finish.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> > "There are a number of different approaches to solving the problem of
> > replication, each with strengths and weaknesses. As a result, there
> > are a number of different replication solutions available for
> > PostgreSQL. To find out more, please refer to the website."
>
> Well, that's what I
Andrew Hammond wrote:
> How about "what works with a given release at the time of the
> release"?
We just threw that idea out in the context of the procedural language
discussion because we do not have the resources to check what works.
> Arguably, neither are most of the procedural languages in
Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> 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 repl
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 int
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > >I don't think this sort of material belongs directly into the
> > > > PostgreSQL documentation.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> PostgreSQL documentation (or any product documentation) should be
> factual: describe what the software does and give advice on
91 matches
Mail list logo