public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Joshua D. Drake <[email protected]>
To: Cesar Suga <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve Atkins <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:20:14 -0700
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Cesar Suga wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I also wrote Bruce about that.
> 
> It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions (rather
> than they doing so by other vehicles) you will always happen to be an
> 'updater' to the docs if they change their product lines, if they change
> their business model, if and if.

That is no different than the open source offerings. We have had several
open source offerings that have died over the years. Replicator, for
example has always been Replicator and has been around longer than any
of the current replication solutions.

> 
> If you cite a commercial solution, as a fair game you should cite *all*
> of them.

No. That doesn't make any sense either. I assume we aren't going to list
all PostgreSQL OSS replication solutions (there are at least a dozen or
more).

You list the ones that are stable in their existence (commercial or not).

> If one enterprise has the right to be listed in the
> documentation, all of them might, as you will never be favouring one of
> them.

You are looking at this the wrong way. This isn't about *any*
enterprise. It is about a PostgreSQL Solution. There happens to be two
or three known working open source solutions, and two or three known
working commercial solutions.

> 
> That's the main motivation to write this. Moreover, if there are also
> commercial solutions for high-end installs and they are cited as
> providers to those solutions, it (to a point) disencourages those of
> gathering themselves and writing open source extensions to PostgreSQL.
>

No it doesn't. Because there is always the, "It want's to be free!" crowd.


> If people (who read the documentation) professionally work with
> PostgreSQL, they may already have been briefed by those commercial
> offerings in some way.

Maybe, maybe not.

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

view thread (117+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox