Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:27:33 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Message-ID: <20061026182733.GV26892@nasby.net>
References: <20061026155535.GU26892@nasby.net>
	<200610261559.k9QFxv129610@momjian.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="XF85m9dhOBO43t/C"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200610261559.k9QFxv129610@momjian.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)


--XF85m9dhOBO43t/C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > > Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why
> > > > there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something
> > > > right now, but I can do it later tonight if no one beats me to it.
> > > 
> > > I thought that was implied in the early paragraph about why there are
> > > many solutions.
> > 
> > I think we should explicitely spell it out, especially considering how
> > many times people ask about it. How about...
> > 
> >  This multitude of choices is why PostgreSQL does not ship with a
> >  replication solution by default; any bundled solution would only
> >  satisfy a subset of replication needs.
> 
> The problem is that we do have some solutions in our code, like doing
> data partitioning in the application, warm standby, or using a shared
> disk for failover, so how do we spell that out?  I say there are
> multiple solutions, but I don't see how I can say that all are external
> and not included.

Good point... how about this?
-- 
Jim Nasby                                            jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

--XF85m9dhOBO43t/C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=patch

Index: doc/src/sgml/failover.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/src/sgml/failover.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -c -r1.2 failover.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/failover.sgml	26 Oct 2006 17:07:03 -0000	1.2
--- doc/src/sgml/failover.sgml	26 Oct 2006 18:26:21 -0000
***************
*** 29,35 ****
    working together.  Because there is no single solution that eliminates
    the impact of the sync problem for all use cases, there are multiple
    solutions.  Each solution addresses this problem in a different way, and
!   minimizes its impact for a specific workload.
   </para>
  
   <para>
--- 29,40 ----
    working together.  Because there is no single solution that eliminates
    the impact of the sync problem for all use cases, there are multiple
    solutions.  Each solution addresses this problem in a different way, and
!   minimizes its impact for a specific workload.  A few of these solutions are
!   provided with PostgreSQL itself, but it would be impractical for the core
!   database to handle every scenario. That is why most solutions are implemented
!   outside the database. PostgreSQL's unique extensibility is what allows this
!   to happen, and 3rd-party solutions should not be thought of as
!   <qoute>second-rate</> simply because they are not bundled with the database.
   </para>
  
   <para>

--XF85m9dhOBO43t/C--