Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:57:41 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
To: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Message-ID: <20061025135740.GH26892@nasby.net>
References: <200610250255.k9P2tRM09844@momjian.us>
	<453F3083.6080302@bluegap.ch>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <453F3083.6080302@bluegap.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term 
> 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a 
> well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to 
> avoid that term.
<snip> 
> IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a synchronous replication for a 
> 'Shared Disk Fail Over'. It's not replication, because there's no replica.

Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on
everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use
terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably.
Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability
solution. A few are more concerned with scalability. Sometimes it's a
combination of both. That's why I think it's good for the chapter to
deal with both aspects of this.
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)