Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:24:25 +0100
From: Wolfgang Keller <feliphil@gmx.net>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: PG replication
 across DataCenters)
Message-Id: <20131210202425.4e54580731cba8190987d525@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <52A74907.8040400@hogranch.com>
References: 
 <CAD7Ssm9S__ZQCOq2GEN0G0rrs_4U6aqXiLaX0hh0Ts8JH_LY2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <A737B7A37273E048B164557ADEF4A58B17C5ED75@ntex2010i.host.magwien.gv.at>
 <52A5EB31.7070505@nybeta.com>
 <9F208972-32D3-4295-A30D-BCDAEF139E9F@silentmedia.com>
 <20131210174738.a530d930b8fd1e972d84f234@gmx.net>
 <52A74907.8040400@hogranch.com>
Mail-Copies-To: never
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org

> > Seems to me that the editing process of the different parts of
> > postgresql.org somewhat lacks transactional semantics.
> 
> postgresql-xc is not postgresql, its a fork.

As an end-user, why would I care.

Since, besides that it's still open-source (even same license as
PostgreSQL itself...?), it's following the PostgreSQL releases pretty
closely. According to their roadmap, version 1.1 has been merged with
PostgreSQL 9.2 and version 1.2 will be merged with 9.3.

It would at least merit being mentioned in the doc, just like other
"forks" or whatever you may call it, as long as they're open-source.

Sincerely,

Wolfgang


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general