public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email protected]>
To: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Robert Haas <[email protected]>
Cc: Francisco Reyes <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Londiste
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:07:53 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
On 05/27/2010 04:22 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Bruce Momjian<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bruce Momjian<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Francisco Reyes wrote:
>>>>>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I assumed "Londiste" head reached the level that we should mention
>>>>>>> it, but you are right on the floodgates issue. ?We do aleady mention
>>>>>>> many other replication solutions in other sections, so I didn't think
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then perhaps all that is needed is to just link to the replication section
>>>>>> of the wiki:
>>>>>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Replication,_Clustering,_and_Connection_Pool
>>>>>> ing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A search for replication on the top of the doc page (ie
>>>>>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.4/interactive/index.html) takes to the high
>>>>>> availability page, so a reference there to the wiki page may be a good idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is an excellent idea, not only for replication, but there are
>>>>> probably other wiki pages that we should link to from our main docs. ?I
>>>>> will go through the wiki, find appropriate pages, and add links from our
>>>>> docs.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know that I'm eager to link from our docs to the wiki. ?That
>>>> seems likely to lead to maintenance headaches. ?But on the other hand,
>>>> I see no problem mentioning third-party products that are part of the
>>>> PG ecosystem.
>>>
>>> Well, the problem is that we have more solutions that fit in the docs in
>>> normal places.
>>
>> Isn't that just a matter of rejiggering the page formatting a little bit?
>
> The point is that there is a lot of replication information I don't want
> to merge into that SGML page so even if we mention "Londiste", the wiki
> reference is still useful. I have the same problem with mentioning
> pooling in the docs --- there is no natural place to put it, but I can
> reference the wiki from the performance SGML docs.
well the problem seems to be that we are basically trying to recreate
the stuff on the wiki in the main docs in a way that might end up in
being outdated all the time.
I think that we need to draw a clear line where we do external links
(random sites or the wiki) and internal docs. everything that is the
core product needs to be in the main docs if we go above that (and that
includes all the replication stuff and whatnot) we should just reference
an external source (wiki.postgresql.org prefered - fallback to something
else) but maintaining just some stuff in our own docs seems just wrong...
Stefan
view thread (20+ 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], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Londiste
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