Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 338949FA430; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:29:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55387-06; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:29:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (goliath.word-to-the-wise.com [208.187.80.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20199FA3A0; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:29:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [10.3.2.25] (184.word-to-the-wise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFC11001A; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <200610250420.k9P4KXm08965@momjian.us> References: <200610250420.k9P4KXm08965@momjian.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <0B3BCB88-2FD4-4616-BB5C-3FEB03F3C416@blighty.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Steve Atkins Subject: Re: [DOCS] Replication documentation addition Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:27:14 -0700 To: PostgreSQL-documentation , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.563 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200610/1336 X-Sequence-Number: 93233 On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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. Good question. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. It's basically your judgement, tempered by other peoples feedback, though. If it were me, I'd ask myself "Would I mention this product if it were open source? Would mentioning it help people using the document?". Cheers, Steve