Thread: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Steve Atkins wrote: > > If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't > > worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies. > > I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming > to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions. > > I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have. > I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial > or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of them. > > A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions > that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just > because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql > and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document. 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. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:22:25PM +0930, Shane Ambler wrote: > 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/...." I think this is probably the best compromise. Keep in mind that many people who are looking at us will also be looking at MySQL, which is itself a commercial offering. It's good to let folks know that with PostgreSQL, they have more control over how much money they spend for commercial add-ons and support. -- Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
>> A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions
>> that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just
>> because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql
>> and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document.
>
> OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle
> functions?
Way to compare apples to houses their Bruce. We are talking about
*PostgreSQL* replication solutions. Not *Oracle* compatibility
functions, However, *if* we had an Oracle compatibility section, I would
say, "Yes it does make sense to list EnterpriseDB as a Proprietary
Commercial solution to migrating from Oracle.
> Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution?
Because we aren't talking about MS SQL, we are talking about PostgreSQL.
> 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.
It is no more arbitrary than including *any* information on PostgreSQL
replication solutions, because PostgreSQL doesn't have any.
PostgreSQL doesn't do replication, except for PITR (and that is pushing
it as a replication solution).
Now.. there are *projects* that enable PostgreSQL to do replication.
Some of them are Open Source, some of them are commercial products.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Hi, Cesar, Cesar Suga wrote: > If people (who read the documentation) professionally work with > PostgreSQL, they may already have been briefed by those commercial > offerings in some way. > > I think only the source and its tightly coupled (read: can compile along > with, free as PostgreSQL) components should be packaged into the tarball. > > However, I find Bruce's unofficial wiki idea a good one for comparisons. My suggestion is that the docs should mention only the pure existence of important third-party packages and projects in those places where it talks about the deficits that are supposedly fixed by those. E. G. "There are some third-party packages and projects that aim to provide multi-master replication, you can search for more information at http://[unofficial wiki page url] or your favourite search engine. This way, the docs stay neutral, but point the user to possible solutions of his problem. HTH, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org
Attachment
Cesar Suga wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I also wrote Bruce about that.
>
> It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions (rather
> than they doing so by other vehicles) you will always happen to be an
> 'updater' to the docs if they change their product lines, if they change
> their business model, if and if.
That is no different than the open source offerings. We have had several
open source offerings that have died over the years. Replicator, for
example has always been Replicator and has been around longer than any
of the current replication solutions.
>
> If you cite a commercial solution, as a fair game you should cite *all*
> of them.
No. That doesn't make any sense either. I assume we aren't going to list
all PostgreSQL OSS replication solutions (there are at least a dozen or
more).
You list the ones that are stable in their existence (commercial or not).
> If one enterprise has the right to be listed in the
> documentation, all of them might, as you will never be favouring one of
> them.
You are looking at this the wrong way. This isn't about *any*
enterprise. It is about a PostgreSQL Solution. There happens to be two
or three known working open source solutions, and two or three known
working commercial solutions.
>
> That's the main motivation to write this. Moreover, if there are also
> commercial solutions for high-end installs and they are cited as
> providers to those solutions, it (to a point) disencourages those of
> gathering themselves and writing open source extensions to PostgreSQL.
>
No it doesn't. Because there is always the, "It want's to be free!" crowd.
> If people (who read the documentation) professionally work with
> PostgreSQL, they may already have been briefed by those commercial
> offerings in some way.
Maybe, maybe not.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
I would think that companies that sell closed-source solutions for PostgreSQL would be modest enough not to push their own agenda for the documentation. I think they should just sit back and hope others suggest it. [ Josh Berkus recently left Green Plum for Sun. ] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >> A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions > >> that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just > >> because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql > >> and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document. > > > > OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle > > functions? > > Way to compare apples to houses their Bruce. We are talking about > *PostgreSQL* replication solutions. Not *Oracle* compatibility > functions, However, *if* we had an Oracle compatibility section, I would > say, "Yes it does make sense to list EnterpriseDB as a Proprietary > Commercial solution to migrating from Oracle. > > > Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? > > Because we aren't talking about MS SQL, we are talking about PostgreSQL. > > > 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. > > It is no more arbitrary than including *any* information on PostgreSQL > replication solutions, because PostgreSQL doesn't have any. > > PostgreSQL doesn't do replication, except for PITR (and that is pushing > it as a replication solution). > > Now.. there are *projects* that enable PostgreSQL to do replication. > Some of them are Open Source, some of them are commercial products. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > -- > > === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === > Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 > Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 > http://www.commandprompt.com/ > > Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I would think that companies that sell closed-source solutions for
> PostgreSQL would be modest enough not to push their own agenda for the
> documentation. I think they should just sit back and hope others
> suggest it.
>
> [ Josh Berkus recently left Green Plum for Sun. ]
Bruce, you are making an idiot of yourself. With this statement you have
implied that Josh Berkus, are core member somehow has his own agenda
that is not in the interests of the PostgreSQL community.
Further that, you are suggesting that I as a member of Command Prompt
has an agenda that is not in the interests of the PostgreSQL community.
It was rude, uncalled for, inaccurate, and frankly disgusting.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> > I also wrote Bruce about that. > > > > It happens that, if you 'freely advertise' commercial solutions > > (rather than they doing so by other vehicles) you will > always happen > > to be an 'updater' to the docs if they change their product > lines, if > > they change their business model, if and if. > > That is no different than the open source offerings. We have > had several open source offerings that have died over the > years. Replicator, for example has always been Replicator and > has been around longer than any of the current replication solutions. 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. And that can contain both free and non-free projects, under clear headlines showing the difference. The documentation is about PostgreSQL, not about third-party products, be they free or commercial. Our *website*, however, should give guidance on which specific products we (as a community) know are stable and usable along with PostgreSQL (as we do today under downloads, but could very well do based on specific uses like replication as well) //Magnus
>>> they change their business model, if and if.
>> That is no different than the open source offerings. We have
>> had several open source offerings that have died over the
>> years. Replicator, for example has always been Replicator and
>> has been around longer than any of the current replication solutions.
>
> 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. And that can contain both free and non-free
> projects, under clear headlines showing the difference.
>
> The documentation is about PostgreSQL, not about third-party products,
> be they free or commercial. Our *website*, however, should give guidance
> on which specific products we (as a community) know are stable and
> usable along with PostgreSQL (as we do today under downloads, but could
> very well do based on specific uses like replication as well)
>
I can agree with this :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
"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.
regards, tom lane
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. This being said, I would say that the replication documentation needs to be on Techdocs or some place similar and that we should have a link in the PostgreSQL docs that points to the techdocs article and possibly: http://www.postgresql.org/download/ . Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
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. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
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.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
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. +