From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200610251541.k9PFfx927732@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
In-Reply-To: <20061025135740.GH26892@nasby.net>
To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:41:59 -0400 (EDT)
CC: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> 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.

OK, I did break it out somewhat for clarity.  Let me know how it looks
now.

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

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