Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 788649FA3A0; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:13:10 -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 48696-06; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:13:03 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from m.wordtothewise.com (goliath.word-to-the-wise.com [208.187.80.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8071B9FB27C; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:12:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [10.3.2.25] (184.word-to-the-wise.com [208.187.80.184]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by m.wordtothewise.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5BFFF96; Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <200610250348.k9P3m3l14967@momjian.us> References: <200610250348.k9P3m3l14967@momjian.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Steve Atkins Subject: Re: [DOCS] Replication documentation addition Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:10:54 -0700 To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, PostgreSQL-documentation X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.049 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA, SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200610/1334 X-Sequence-Number: 93231 On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Bruce, >>> >>>> I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should >>>> change. >>>> I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL >>>> products in >>>> our documentation. >>> >>> I think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just >>> briefly with a >>> link. Bizgres MPP, ExtenDB, uni/cluster, and Mammoth Replicator. >> >> And to further this I would expect that it would be a subsection.. >> e.g; >> a or . I think the open source version should >> absolutely >> get top billing though. > > I am not inclined to add commercial offerings. If people wanted > commercial database offerings, they can get them from companies that > advertize. People are coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions, > and I think mentioning commercial ones doesn't make sense. > > If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't > worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies. I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions. I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have. I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of them. 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. Cheers, Steve