Message-ID: <453F41E9.3050307@007Marketing.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:22:25 +0930
From: Shane Ambler <pgsql@007Marketing.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Macintosh/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
CC: Steve Atkins <steve@blighty.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Replication documentation addition
References: <200610250420.k9P4KXm08965@momjian.us>
In-Reply-To: <200610250420.k9P4KXm08965@momjian.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> functions?  Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution?  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.  If someone wants
> to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't
> seems as official.

I agree that the commercial offerings shouldn't be named directly in the 
docs, but it should be mentioned that some commercial options are 
available and a starting point to find more information.

If potential new users look through the docs and it says no options 
available for what they want or consider they will need in the future 
then they go elsewhere, if they know that some options are available 
then they will look further if they want that feature.

something like
"There are currently no open source solutions available for this option 
but there are some commercial offerings. More details of some available 
solutions can be found at postgresql.org/support/...."


-- 

Shane Ambler
pgSQL@007Marketing.com

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz