On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Dan Langille wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> To be fair :) the only thing that makes Slony notable for PostgreSQL is
>>>>>> that it is Open Source. There are other replication systems out there
>>>>>> that have been working for some time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh, and we are an open source project --- Slony being "open source"
>>>>> seems like a very notable distinction to me.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for pointing out what I already had :)
>>>
>>> My point was that saying it is the "only thing" that makes it notable is
>>> to minimize a major point of pushing Slony. It is "the" notable issue.
>>
>> Not it isn't, as there are other Open Source replication solutions for
>> PostgreSQL, as I pointed out before ... Slony is effectively "the fashion
>> of the day", and next release, there could be 'yet another of the many'
>> that is that much better ...
>
> Under which case, we'll be talking about that solution.
And it will be no more appropriate for a release announcement about
PostgreSQL RDBMS then it is now ... unless, of course, its a *really* slow
release and we need to add stuff to prop it up, which this release does
not require ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
