Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> "Magnus Hagander" <mha@sollentuna.net> writes:
> >>> I think this is a good reason not to list *any* of the products by name
> >>> in the documentation, but instead refer to a page on say techdocs that
> >>> can be more easily updated.
> >> I agree with that. If we have statements about other projects in our
> >> docs, we will have a problem with not being able to update those
> >> statements in a timely fashion when the other projects change.
> >
> > I mention only Slony and pgpool as examples of replication types. They
> > seem to have risen to high enough visiblity to do that. I have not
> > mentioned any other solutions.
>
> What about Slony-II or pgpool2? Which are fundamentally different from
> their v1 counterparts (o.k. slony-ii isn't out yet but still).
>
> I +1 that we move to have all of the replication documentation pushed to
> techdocs or other facility and just have a link from the docs.
What I did was to mention Slony and pgpool as "examples", so people
realize there are many other soluions. It would be good to have a
companion web site that could list them all, both open source and
commercial. That is going to take a lot more work, but I think would
have great value, especially since our documentation will clearly
outline the terms. What you don't want to do is to throw up a list and
have people try to figure out what solutions they cover.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
