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.
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
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 time to write
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
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 events
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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 to
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.
snip
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 them, I
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 that
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)
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 business
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. ]
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 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.
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 replication
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, 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 other projects
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 to
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 to
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
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 other
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 have statements
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 updated.
I agree with
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
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
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
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 a page on say
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 set
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 feel
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
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
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.
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 and
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 some
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
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 replication
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 go in).
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 pooling
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
doesn't go
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 jakarta pooling
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
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
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, but just briefly
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
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 be
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_
52 matches
Mail list logo
