Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
Joshua D. Drake wrote: 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. The documentation comes with the open source tarball. I would welcome if the docs point to an unofficial wiki (maintained externally from authoritative PostgreSQL developers) or a website listing them and giving a brief of each solution. postgresql.org already does this for events (commercial training!) and news. Point to postgresql.org/download/commercial as there *already* are brief descriptions, pricing and website links. 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). And how would you determine it? Years of existance? Contribution to PostgreSQL's source code? It is not easy and wouldn't be fair. There are ones that certainly will be listed, and other doubtful ones (which would perhaps complain, that's why I said 'all' - if they are not stable, either they stay out of the market or fix their problems). 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. (see first three paragraphs) 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. Yes, I agree there are. But also development in *that* cutting-edge is scarce. It feels that something had filled the gap if you list some commercial solution, mainly people in the trenches (DBAs). They would, obviously, firstly seek the commercial solutions as they are interested. So they click 'commercial products' in the main website. 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 And I agree with your point, still. However, that would open a precedent for people to have to maintain lists of stable software in every documentation area. Regards, Cesar ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition
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. If you cite a commercial solution, as a fair game you should cite *all* of them. 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. 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. As Bruce stated, then should the documentation contemplate EnterpriseDB's Oracle functions? Should PostgreSQL also come with it? Wouldn't it be painful to make, say, another description for an alternate product other than EnterpriseDB if it arises? 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. Regards, Cesar Steve Atkins wrote: On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: 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. Good question. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. It's basically your judgement, tempered by other peoples feedback, though. If it were me, I'd ask myself "Would I mention this product if it were open source? Would mentioning it help people using the document?". Cheers, Steve ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
