Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 478319FA15A
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  8 Nov 2007 11:23:34 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 72225-05-2 for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Thu,  8 Nov 2007 11:23:30 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE7E9FCB89
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Thu,  8 Nov 2007 11:22:54 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lA8FMmOL024571;
	Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:22:49 -0500 (EST)
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Mentioning Slony in docs 
In-reply-to: <1194513961.4251.193.camel@ebony.site> 
References: <1194509440.4251.180.camel@ebony.site>
	<200711081010.14464.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<1194513961.4251.193.camel@ebony.site>
Comments: In-reply-to Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:26:01 +0000"
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 10:22:48 -0500
Message-ID: <24570.1194535368@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200711/12
X-Sequence-Number: 4545

Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
> the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.

The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
fits everyone's needs.  I don't think the core docs should be pushing
Slony more than other solutions.

			regards, tom lane