From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | "Andrew Hammond" <andrew(dot)george(dot)hammond(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Replication Documentation |
Date: | 2006-08-03 17:16:15 |
Message-ID: | 200608031916.15621.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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 the Server
> Programming section of the documentation, and yet they're included.
That is false. The documentation documents exactly those pieces of code
that we distribute.
> "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've been talking about all along, and it has also
been the resolution at the Toronto meeting.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | korryd@enterprisedb.com | 2006-08-03 17:22:19 | Re: pg_terminate_backend |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2006-08-03 17:12:44 | Re: pg_terminate_backend |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-08-03 17:32:55 | Re: LWLock statistics collector |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-08-03 17:11:47 | Re: Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [PATCHES] |