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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Cesar Suga <sartre(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Steve Atkins <steve(at)blighty(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Date: 2006-10-25 14:20:14
Message-ID: 453F729E.7040101@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackers
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 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 solutions.

> 
> If you cite a commercial solution, as a fair game you should cite *all*
> of them.

No. That doesn't make any sense either. I assume we aren't going to list
all PostgreSQL OSS replication solutions (there are at least a dozen or
more).

You list the ones that are stable in their existence (commercial or not).

> If one enterprise has the right to be listed in the
> documentation, all of them might, as you will never be favouring one of
> them.

You are looking at this the wrong way. This isn't about *any*
enterprise. It is about a PostgreSQL Solution. There happens to be two
or three known working open source solutions, and two or three known
working commercial solutions.

> 
> That's the main motivation to write this. Moreover, if there are also
> commercial solutions for high-end installs and they are cited as
> providers to those solutions, it (to a point) disencourages those of
> gathering themselves and writing open source extensions to PostgreSQL.
>

No it doesn't. Because there is always the, "It want's to be free!" crowd.


> If people (who read the documentation) professionally work with
> PostgreSQL, they may already have been briefed by those commercial
> offerings in some way.

Maybe, maybe not.

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


In response to

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-10-25 14:21:47
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Previous:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2006-10-25 14:16:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-10-25 14:21:47
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Previous:From: Markus SchaberDate: 2006-10-25 14:16:14
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

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