Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.

I'm pretty sure Skytools/Londiste works across versions too.
Presumably, any replication that's not based on binary format should
work.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828