Message-ID: <453F8636.2070906@bluegap.ch>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:43:50 +0200
From: Markus Schiltknecht <markus@bluegap.ch>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (X11/20060927)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>
CC: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@skype.net>,
	PostgreSQL-documentation <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
References: <200610250255.k9P2tRM09844@momjian.us>
	<453F3083.6080302@bluegap.ch> <20061025135740.GH26892@nasby.net>
In-Reply-To: <20061025135740.GH26892@nasby.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on
> everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use
> terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably.
> Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability
> solution. A few are more concerned with scalability. Sometimes it's a
> combination of both. That's why I think it's good for the chapter to
> deal with both aspects of this.

Yabut... at least the PostgreSQL manual should uses the terms correctly.

And while I do perfectly agree that it's a fail-over solution and it 
should be mentioned in that section, I'm arguing that it's not replication.

Regards

Markus