From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200610251421.k9PELlf21107@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
In-Reply-To: <453F7125.3080605@commandprompt.com>
To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:21:47 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"


I would think that companies that sell closed-source solutions for
PostgreSQL would be modest enough not to push their own agenda for the
documentation.  I think they should just sit back and hope others
suggest it.

[ Josh Berkus recently left Green Plum for Sun. ]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
> >> 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?
> 
> Way to compare apples to houses their Bruce. We are talking about
> *PostgreSQL* replication solutions. Not *Oracle* compatibility
> functions, However, *if* we had an Oracle compatibility section, I would
> say, "Yes it does make sense to list EnterpriseDB as a Proprietary
> Commercial solution to migrating from Oracle.
> 
> >  Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution?
> 
> Because we aren't talking about MS SQL, we are talking about PostgreSQL.
> 
> >  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.
> 
> It is no more arbitrary than including *any* information on PostgreSQL
> replication solutions, because PostgreSQL doesn't have any.
> 
> PostgreSQL doesn't do replication, except for PITR (and that is pushing
> it as a replication solution).
> 
> Now.. there are *projects* that enable PostgreSQL to do replication.
> Some of them are Open Source, some of them are commercial products.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Joshua D. Drake
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
>       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
>              http://www.commandprompt.com/
> 
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> 
> 
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +