Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

Steve Atkins wrote:
> > If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't
> > worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies.
>
> I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming
> to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions.
>
> I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have.
> I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial
> or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of them.
>
> 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? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? 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. If someone wants
to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't
seems as official.

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

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