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

Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Mentioning Slony in docs
Date: 2007-11-08 15:28:34
Message-ID: 200711081528.lA8FSYN05094@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-docs
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
> > the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.
> 
> The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
> fits everyone's needs.  I don't think the core docs should be pushing
> Slony more than other solutions.

We do mention Slony for in-place upgrades because if its capabilities to
work across Postgres versions.

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

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2007-11-08 15:38:29
Subject: The definition of PGDG
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-11-08 15:22:48
Subject: Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Greg Sabino MullaneDate: 2007-11-08 15:38:29
Subject: The definition of PGDG
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2007-11-08 15:22:48
Subject: Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

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