Subject: Londiste

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 19:52:02 -0400 (EDT)

Can anyone suggest where a "Londiste" mention would fit in our high
availability docs?

	http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

---

From: Francisco Reyes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 20:23:13 -0400

> Can anyone suggest where a "Londiste" mention would fit in our high

I would suggest a new category.
25.1 (Comparison of different solutions) lists this one type of solution 
"Trigger-Based Master-Slave Replication".

Perhaps a category for Trigger-Based Master-Slave Replication coulde be 
25.7. This would work not only for Londiste but for anything else that uses 
triggers.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 23:44:40 -0400

>        http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html

I would think wherever we mention Slony - I gather that they are
fairly similar in implementation, though I might be wrong about that.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

---

From: Francisco Reyes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 06:43:23 -0400

> fairly similar in implementation, though I might be wrong about that.

I thought the same, however I did not see Slony mentioned on that URL. At 
least it was not in an obvious place.

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:23:23 -0000

> http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/high-availability.html

We already have Slony there as an "example of" async master-slave. Is 
there some problem you are trying to fix? It would be hard to add this 
without opening the floodgates of mentioning all replication systems.

- -- 
Greg Sabino Mullane [email-masked]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201005251122
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:00:07 -0400 (EDT)

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
> 
> 

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
the flood would be too bad.

---

From: Francisco Reyes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 13:14:14 -0400

> 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.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 14:15:07 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

---

From: Simon Riggs <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 21:57:18 +0100

> without opening the floodgates of mentioning all replication systems.

Don't see a problem with mentioning Londiste.

It's not like there's that many production-strength candidates that we
shouldn't mention them all. Right now, I see it as the only missing one
on the list.

BTW Bruce, "log shipping" isn't mentioned at all in that section, which
is strange since that's what's in 9.0.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:56:45 -0400

> will go through the wiki, find appropriate pages, and add links from our

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.

---

From: alvherre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 16:03:12 -0400

> I see no problem mentioning third-party products that are part of the

I don't think we should be adding hundreds of wiki links to the docs,
but if it's just half a dozen, I think it's a good idea.  Those pages
have already undergone a lot of revision and they are unlikely to go
away.  We already have links to pages in external sites and they do
cause some pain, but it's not much and this is only every two years or so.

Keep in mind that pages in the Wiki are going to be replaced by a
redirect page if they ever get renamed, for example.  It's highly
unlikely that they are going to disappear completely.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera <[email-masked]>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 17:45:15 -0400 (EDT)

Robert Haas wrote:
> >> > it, but you are right on the floodgates issue. ?We do aleady mention
> > probably other wiki pages that we should link to from our main docs. ?I

Well, the problem is that we have more solutions that fit in the docs in
normal places.  I was thinking of just linking to major wiki pages, like
replication and pooling.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:41:52 -0400

> unlikely that they are going to disappear completely.

Eh, maybe.  I think generally the wiki documentation is of lower
quality than our main docs.  I'd rather see us put the effort into
writing something that can be incorporated into the docs.

---

From: Robert Haas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:42:18 -0400

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]> wrote:
> normal places.

Isn't that just a matter of rejiggering the page formatting a little bit?

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 22:22:40 -0400 (EDT)

Robert Haas wrote:
> >> 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,

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.

---

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:07:53 +0200

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-masked]>  wrote:
>>> Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bruce Momjian<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>>>>> Francisco Reyes wrote:
>>>>>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>>>>>

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

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 23:14:48 -0400 (EDT)

> else) but maintaining just some stuff in our own docs seems just wrong...

Yea, the wiki information is far too bulky to fit into our docs, and
maintaining it in our docs isn't worthwhile because it is more
_suggestions_ than critical information.

---

From: Joshua Tolley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:10:24 -0600

> _suggestions_ than critical information.

Perhaps the docs should just say exactly that:

The PostgreSQL community has developed a wide variety of additional software
and made it available for general use. This documentation describes only the
software in the "core" PostgreSQL distribution (comprising the server, a set
of client programs, and the contrib packages), and does not attempt to
document this additional software in any detail. Interested readers are
advised to consult the PostgreSQL wiki at http://wiki.postgresql.org for
further details

ISTM there's a page somewhere on the wiki that tries to be a comprehensive
listing of add-ons, but I can't find it. Maybe that page ought to get special
mention in such documentation.

--
Joshua Tolley / eggyknap
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com

---

From: Greg Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:34:55 -0400

> will go through the wiki, find appropriate pages, and add links from our

Please suggest what those pages are before you do the doc edits.  While 
we can fix stuff with redirection, in some cases it would be better to 
create a specific destination page for the documentation to point to, 
with a stable URL from the beginning.  For example, the last specific 
page we would want to point the docs toward is 
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Replication%2C_Clustering%2C_and_Connection_Pooling 
, which is ridiculous in length (I regret creating the page like that), 
going through a major revision right now (parallel descriptions being 
worked out at http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Clustering ), and just 
generally a mess.

I'd rather see (and will create) specific pages created for Replication 
and Pooling if we want something the docs can be pointed towards.  As an 
example, I already created one such page but haven't filled in the 
details for the Nagios etc. doc updates Bruce already inserted:  
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Monitoring.

It's really obvious that PostgreSQL installs in the real world benefit 
from adding a number of non-core tools.  It's inappropriate and 
overwhelming to consider documenting them, or even listing them all, in 
the core docs.  It's also terrible that we don't make it easier for 
people to find those, and point out the seams where it's expected a 
third party package will fill in on something that's been punted out of 
core but is done well outside of it.  The wiki is a reasonable place to 
assemble both a highlights directory of such packages and associated 
documentation, all in one spot.

-- 
Greg Smith  2ndQuadrant US  Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
[email-masked]   www.2ndQuadrant.us

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 16:35:38 -0400 (EDT)

> documentation, all in one spot.

OK, let me troll around and find too pages.  Is there a good way to
review all the useful ones?