Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Date: 2006-10-25 14:21:47
Message-ID: 200610251421.k9PELlf21107@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackers
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. ]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> >> 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 mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> > functions?
> 
> Way to compare apples to houses their Bruce. We are talking about
> *PostgreSQL* replication solutions. Not *Oracle* compatibility
> functions, However, *if* we had an Oracle compatibility section, I would
> say, "Yes it does make sense to list EnterpriseDB as a Proprietary
> Commercial solution to migrating from Oracle.
> 
> >  Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution?
> 
> Because we aren't talking about MS SQL, we are talking about PostgreSQL.
> 
> >  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?   It just
> > seems very arbitrary to include commercial software.
> 
> It is no more arbitrary than including *any* information on PostgreSQL
> replication solutions, because PostgreSQL doesn't have any.
> 
> PostgreSQL doesn't do replication, except for PITR (and that is pushing
> it as a replication solution).
> 
> Now.. there are *projects* that enable PostgreSQL to do replication.
> Some of them are Open Source, some of them are commercial products.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Joshua D. Drake
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
>              http://www.commandprompt.com/
> 
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-10-25 14:28:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-10-25 14:20:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-10-25 14:28:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Previous:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-10-25 14:20:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group