Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I
> just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to include.
> Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL? It just
> seems very arbitrary to include commercial software. If someone wants
> to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't
> seems as official.
I agree that the commercial offerings shouldn't be named directly in the
docs, but it should be mentioned that some commercial options are
available and a starting point to find more information.
If potential new users look through the docs and it says no options
available for what they want or consider they will need in the future
then they go elsewhere, if they know that some options are available
then they will look further if they want that feature.
something like
"There are currently no open source solutions available for this option
but there are some commercial offerings. More details of some available
solutions can be found at postgresql.org/support/...."
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL@007Marketing.com
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
