Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <432B2B82.5030709@gmail.com>
References: <BF505885.3181F%scott_ribe@killerbytes.com>	
	<432B0627.2030700@gmail.com>
	<1126899631.30120.43.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<432B2B82.5030709@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <21ea6e1bf57938abc3235e3526b40350@jobsforge.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Matthew Terenzio <matt@jobsforge.com>
Subject: Re: Replication
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:01:55 -0400
To: PgSQL General <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>


On Sep 16, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Russ Brown wrote:

>> just because replication is  included and
>> part of the core of a database, it doesn't mean that it's reliable or
>> well tested.

I just jumped into this thread, and this statement just triggers one 
thought.

Many Postgres end users rely on experts like those on this list for the 
best advice on how to use Postgres and what might be the best solution 
for non-core needs such as replication.

Inclusion does probably make those users feel comfort that the experts 
for that particular software or product deems it one of , if not the 
best solution for the given problem.

It's not always true and may not be right for this situation, since 
replication needs for different situations may vary widely.

But inclusion does imply some type of endorsement.

For instance I feel pretty comfortable with TSeach2 though I don't know 
much about. That fact that it comes in the contribs is an endorsement.
I'd be confused if the consensus was that there is a better, as easy to 
use and license compatible full text index available and was for some 
reason NOT included.

Of course, I'd still ask the list. . .