On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > > Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why
> > > > there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something
> > > > right now, but I can do it later tonight if no one beats me to it.
> > >
> > > I thought that was implied in the early paragraph about why there are
> > > many solutions.
> > I think we should explicitely spell it out, especially considering how
> > many times people ask about it. How about...
> > This multitude of choices is why PostgreSQL does not ship with a
> > replication solution by default; any bundled solution would only
> > satisfy a subset of replication needs.
> The problem is that we do have some solutions in our code, like doing
> data partitioning in the application, warm standby, or using a shared
> disk for failover, so how do we spell that out? I say there are
> multiple solutions, but I don't see how I can say that all are external
> and not included.
Good point... how about this?
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Robert Treat||Date: 2006-10-26 19:06:13|
|Subject: Re: Replication documentation addition|
|Previous:||From: Richard Troy||Date: 2006-10-26 17:35:21|
|Subject: Re: [DOCS] Replication documentation addition|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2006-10-26 18:31:56|
|Subject: Eliminating phase 3 requirement for varlen increases via ALTER COLUMN|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-10-26 18:26:26|
|Subject: Re: plperl/plperlu interaction |