On Fri, Jan 13, 2006 at 03:15:06PM +0100, Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> >>
> >> Too bad - I think that will keep a lot of potential users from
> >> evaluating Pg as a serious alternative. Good or bad, decide for
> >> yourself :)
>
> >Why on earth should that be?
>
> Citing Baldur Norddahl (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2006-01/msg00597.php):
>
> "I will also point out that none of the replication solutions have the same solid reputation as postgresql. As long
thepostgresql team will not endorse a replication solution, you can not expect people to put the same trust in these
solutionsas we put into postgresql itself."
I'm not really sure what you're looking for here. None of the
replication solutions have the same reputation as PostgreSQL itself
because they're both newer than PostgreSQL itself and used by a much
smaller number of people.
If you want to increase the reputation of a replication solution, it's
going to take something other than trying to get core to put out some
kind of endorsement. Case studies of real-world users is something that
would help. Showing what kind of test coverage there is wouldn't hurt.
Performance tests would be good.
In other words, if promoting replication is important to you, there's
plenty of things you can do that will help on that front. But as others
have said, the various replication solutions are going to have to stand
(or fall) on their own merits.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
