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 with a
> > link. Bizgres MPP, ExtenDB, uni/cluster, and Mammoth Replicator.
> And to further this I would expect that it would be a subsection.. e.g;
> a <sect2> or <sect3>. I think the open source version should absolutely
> get top billing though.
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 need to hear that from people who haven't
worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies.
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Steve Atkins||Date: 2006-10-25 04:10:54|
|Subject: Re: [DOCS] Replication documentation addition|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2006-10-25 03:08:53|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: rajesh boppana||Date: 2006-10-25 03:54:16|
|Subject: materialised view|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-10-25 03:34:03|
|Subject: Re: Incorrect behavior with CE and ORDER BY |