Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D829FB3CA; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:13:32 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49912-04; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:13:27 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from lists.commandprompt.com (host-130.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF1B9FB3C9; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:13:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.95] (or-67-76-146-141.sta.embarqhsd.net [67.76.146.141]) (authenticated bits=0) by lists.commandprompt.com (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9PEDDik006678 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:13:14 -0700 Message-ID: <453F7125.3080605@commandprompt.com> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:13:57 -0700 From: "Joshua D. Drake" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060918) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Momjian CC: Steve Atkins , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition References: <200610250420.k9P4KXm08965@momjian.us> In-Reply-To: <200610250420.k9P4KXm08965@momjian.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.4, clamav-milter version 0.88.4 on projects.commandprompt.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Greylist: Sender succeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (lists.commandprompt.com [192.168.2.159]); Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.583 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/78 X-Sequence-Number: 3799 >> A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions >> that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just >> because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql >> and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document. > > OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle > functions? Way to compare apples to houses their Bruce. We are talking about *PostgreSQL* replication solutions. Not *Oracle* compatibility functions, However, *if* we had an Oracle compatibility section, I would say, "Yes it does make sense to list EnterpriseDB as a Proprietary Commercial solution to migrating from Oracle. > Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? Because we aren't talking about MS SQL, we are talking about PostgreSQL. > 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. It is no more arbitrary than including *any* information on PostgreSQL replication solutions, because PostgreSQL doesn't have any. PostgreSQL doesn't do replication, except for PITR (and that is pushing it as a replication solution). Now.. there are *projects* that enable PostgreSQL to do replication. Some of them are Open Source, some of them are commercial products. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate