Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Mentioning Slony in docs
Date: 2007-11-08 15:22:48
Message-ID: 24570.1194535368@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-docs

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-11-08 15:28:34 Re: Mentioning Slony in docs
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-11-08 09:26:01 Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-11-08 15:28:34 Re: Mentioning Slony in docs
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-11-08 09:26:01 Re: Mentioning Slony in docs