On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to
all of
the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.
The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no on
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
> > the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.
>
> The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
> fits everyone's needs. I don
Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
> the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.
The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
fits everyone's needs. I don't think the core docs shoul
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:10 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. November 2007 schrieb Simon Riggs:
> > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code
> > and it is of course BSD licenced.
>
> Why is that a reason for mentioning it more prominently?
It's not
Am Donnerstag, 8. November 2007 schrieb Simon Riggs:
> The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code
> and it is of course BSD licenced.
Why is that a reason for mentioning it more prominently? Is "code ownership"
a relevant property?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://develope
IMHO it would be appropriate to provide better links to Slony from
within the Postgres docs.
The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code
and it is of course BSD licenced.
Now that this has been highlighted to me, I can't see a reason for the
previous balanced approach.
