Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-27 Thread Richard Troy
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: ...snip... Data partitioning is often done within a single database on a single server and therefore, as a concept, has nothing whatsoever to do with different servers. Similarly, the second paragraph of this section is Uh, why would someone

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 05:46:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work. Yes. I like that idea, but I think that the URL needs to be decided upon, needs to be stable, and needs to be put into the docs. (I

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
With no new additions submitted today, I have moved my text into our SGML documentation: http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/failover.html Please let me know what additional changes are needed. --- bruce

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something right now, but I can do it later tonight if no one beats me to it.

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something right now, but I can do it later tonight

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something right now, but I can do it

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Alexey Klyukin
Hi, A typo: (a write to any server has to be _propogated_) s/propogated/propagated Bruce Momjian wrote: Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2: ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication Comments welcomed. -- Regards, Alexey Klyukin

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Richard Troy
The documentation comes with the open source tarball. Yuck. 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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Robert Treat
On Thursday 26 October 2006 10:45, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 05:46:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work. Yes. I like that idea, but I think that the URL needs to be decided

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Richard Troy
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation, though I have a few as examples.

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why there's no built-in replication. I don't have

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 11:59:57AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 08:42:07PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why there's no

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-26 Thread Andrew Sullivan
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:06:13PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote: Unfortunately the techdocs system won't support a url like the one above, rather you'll end up with something more like the following http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs.54 which is the GUI Tools Guide (which is linked in

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Cesar Suga
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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Hannu Krosing
Krosing Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition OK, I have updated the URL. Please let me know how you like it. There's a typo on line 8, first paragraph: perhaps with only one server allowing write

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Markus Schiltknecht
Hi, Bruce Momjian wrote: I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change. I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in our documentation. I support your POV and vote for not including any pointers to commercial extensions in the official

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Magnus Hagander
I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be mentioning commercial solutions. I think maybe the PostgreSQL documentation should be careful about trying to list a complete list of commercial *or* free solutions. Instead linking to something on the main website or on techdocs that can

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Shane Ambler
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?

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to avoid that term. snip

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
I am not inclined to add commercial offerings. If people wanted commercial database offerings, they can get them from companies that advertize. People are coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions, and I think mentioning commercial ones doesn't make sense. If we are to add them, I

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Markus Schaber
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)

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
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. ]

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
, -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM To: Hannu Krosing Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
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. ]

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Magnus Hagander
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.

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Tom Lane
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Markus Schiltknecht wrote: Hi, Bruce Momjian wrote: I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change. I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in our documentation. I support your POV and vote for not including any pointers to

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: I can't really get excited about the exclusion of the term 'replication', because it's what most people are looking for. It's a well known term. Sorry if it sounded that way, but I've not meant to

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Markus Schiltknecht
Hi, Jim C. Nasby wrote: Those to statements are at odds with each other, at least based on everyone I've ever talked to in a commercial setting. People will use terms like 'replication', 'HA' or 'clustering' fairly interchangably. Usually what these folks want is some kind of high-availability

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Richard Troy
Hi Hannu, everyone, I apologize for not having read the document in question - will do shortly. My comments are brought about by the dialogue I read on list this morning... Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2:

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread David Fetter
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: Can we name the chapter Fail-over, Load-Balancing and Replication Options? That would fit everything and contain the necessary buzz words. ... IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a synchronous replication for a

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
David Fetter wrote: On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 11:38:11AM +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote: Can we name the chapter Fail-over, Load-Balancing and Replication Options? That would fit everything and contain the necessary buzz words. ... IMHO, it does not make sense to speak of a

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Casey Duncan
Totally agree. The docs will tend to outlive whatever projects or websites they mention. Best to not bake that into stone. -Casey On Oct 25, 2006, at 3:36 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be mentioning commercial solutions. I think maybe the

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Richard Troy
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2: ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication ...Read the document, as promissed... First paragraph, (fail over) is inconsistent with title, failover, as are other spots throughout the document. The whole

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Alexey Klyukin wrote: Hi, A typo: (a write to any server has to be _propogated_) s/propogated/propagated Thanks, fixed. --- Bruce Momjian wrote: Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication I'm still not seeing anything in this patch that tells users where they can get replication solutions for PostgreSQL, either OSS or commercial. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Richard Troy wrote: Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2: ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication ...Read the document, as promissed... First paragraph, (fail over) is inconsistent with title, failover, as are other spots

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication I'm still not seeing anything in this patch that tells users where they can get replication solutions for PostgreSQL, either OSS or commercial. It isn't designed for that. It is designed for

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Dawid Kuroczko
On 10/25/06, Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation, though I have a few as examples. Do they? I've seen no discussion of the

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation, though I have a few as examples. Do they? I've

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Dawid Kuroczko wrote: Bruce, I've read Your documentation and I was left a bit with a feeling that it's a bit too generic. It's almost as if it could be about just about any major database, not PostgreSQL specific. I feel that, when I'm reading PostgreSQL docs I would like to know how to set

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, Most people didn't want a list because there is no way to keep it current in the docs, and a secondary web site was suggested for the list. So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, Most people didn't want a list because there is no way to keep it current in the docs, and a secondary web site was suggested for the list. So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work. Yes. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 04:42:17PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Dawid Kuroczko wrote: Bruce, I've read Your documentation and I was left a bit with a feeling that it's a bit too generic. It's almost as if it could be about just about any major database, not PostgreSQL specific. I feel

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Bruce Momjian
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Something else worth doing though is to have a paragraph explaining why there's no built-in replication. I don't have time to write something right now, but I can do it later tonight if no one beats me to it. I thought that was implied in the early paragraph about why there

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-25 Thread Cesar Suga
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

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Hannu Krosing
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-10-24 kell 00:20, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2: ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication This is how data partitioning is currently described there Data Partitioning

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Markus Schiltknecht
Hannu Krosing wrote: I think the official term for this kind of replication is Shared-Nothing Clustering. Well, that's just another distinction for clusters. Most of the time it's between Shared-Disk vs. Shared-Nothing. You could also see the very Big Irons as a Shared-Everything Cluster.

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, Here is my first draft of a new replication section for our documentation. I am looking for any comments. Hmmm ... while the primer on different types of replication is fine, I think what users were really looking for is a listing of the different replication solutions which are

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Markus Schiltknecht
Hello Josh, Josh Berkus wrote: Hmmm ... while the primer on different types of replication is fine, I think what users were really looking for is a listing of the different replication solutions which are available for PostgreSQL and how to get them. Well, let's see what we have: * Shared

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some knowledge and require a more or less complex installation and configuration.

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 12:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some knowledge and

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 12:34 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling doesn't go in). ...and how do you define PostgreSQL exactly? -- Simon Riggs

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling doesn't go in). ...and how do you define PostgreSQL exactly? I replication

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:33 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling doesn't go in).

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:33 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 11:39:34PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: Query Broadcast Replication --- This involves sending write queries to multiple servers. Read-only queries can be sent to a single server because there is no need for all servers to process it. This

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Jim C. Nasby
On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:33:03PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling doesn't go

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 03:33:03PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 15:13 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: If it were me, I would say that the replication option has to be specific to PostgreSQL (e.g; cjdbc or synchronous jakarta pooling

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
OK, I have updated the URL. Please let me know how you like it. --- Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-10-24 kell 00:20, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Jeff Frost
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: AFAIK Continuent's product fails that test... To my knowledge, p/cluster only works with PostgreSQL but I could be wrong. p/cluster was the old name for the PostgreSQL specific version. It's been rebranded as uni/cluster and they have versions

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Luke Lonergan
Bruce, -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM To: Hannu Krosing Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition OK

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change. I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in our documentation. --- Hannu Krosing wrote: ?hel kenal p?eval, T, 2006-10-24

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Markus Schiltknecht wrote: Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some knowledge and require a more or less complex

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Of Bruce Momjian Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM To: Hannu Krosing Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition OK, I have updated the URL. Please let me know how you like it. There's a typo on line 8, first

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Looking at that, I'm a) missing PgCluster and b) arguing that we have to admit that we simply can not 'list .. replication solutions ... and how to get them' because all of the solutions mentioned need quite some knowledge and require a more or less complex

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Josh Berkus
Bruce, I have updated the text.  Please let me know what else I should change. I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in our documentation. I think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just briefly with a link. Bizgres MPP, ExtenDB, uni/cluster, and

Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change. I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in our documentation. I think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just briefly with a link. Bizgres MPP,

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change. I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in our documentation. I think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just briefly

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Steve Atkins
On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: Bruce, I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should change. I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL products in our documentation. I think you should

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-24 Thread Steve Atkins
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_

[HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Here is my first draft of a new replication section for our documentation. I am looking for any comments. --- Replication === Database replication allows multiple computers to work together, making them appear as

[HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

2006-10-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2: ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication Comments welcomed. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your