Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DC7B2E007C
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 02:56:09 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 13099-05 for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  6 Mar 2008 02:56:06 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from flame.co.za (ns.flame.co.za [160.124.170.1])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 057FB2E004E
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Thu,  6 Mar 2008 02:56:05 -0400 (AST)
Received: from [192.168.0.138] (unknown [196.209.62.7])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by flame.co.za (Postfix) with ESMTP id 697C9802A0
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Thu,  6 Mar 2008 08:54:56 +0200 (SAST)
Subject: Re: FAQ on Embedding Postgres
From: Theo Kramer <theo@flame.co.za>
Reply-To: theo@flame.co.za
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <11585.1204784735@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <200803051502.m25F2fm03349@momjian.us>
	<718.1204738553@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080305174126.GM19860@fetter.org>
	<1029.1204739761@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20080305182500.GN19860@fetter.org>
	<20080305103043.233761e8@jd-laptop> <20080305105307.2bcce254@jd-laptop>
	<20080305191717.GV4755@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0803051830040.3352@westnet.com>
	<11585.1204784735@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Flame Computing Enterprises cc
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:54:23 +0200
Message-Id: <1204786463.2332.11.camel@localhost6.localdomain6>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-4.fc7) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200803/29
X-Sequence-Number: 4841

On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 01:25 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> > I think it's funny to consider a specific recommendation for SQLite as 
> > being out of line when you look at the history here.  The whole reason 
> > that software even exists is because of the difficulty of using PostgreSQL 
> > in this context.  See http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6650
> 
> I've got nothing against SQLite.  But I am unhappy with the idea of us
> recommending *any* particular bit of software that is not under our
> control, especially in a document that is as widespread and hard to
> update as our FAQ.  There are any number of scenarios where we might
> want to take back such an endorsement, but once made it'll be out there
> somewhere on the Web until cockroaches rule the earth.  There is also
> the whole class of arguments about "why'd you recommend X and not Y?"
> that we'd surely get sucked into.  Better not to go there in the first
> place.

From a users point of view - both PostgreSQL and other embedable
databases aka file handlers

I have to agree - suggesting an alternate product might belong in a book
but not in a FAQ which is relevant to PostgreSQL and an integral part of
the PostgreSQL documentation.
-- 
Regards
Theo