Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition

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 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 are
> > > > many solutions.
> > >
> > > I think we should explicitely spell it out, especially considering how
> > > many times people ask about it. How about...
> > >
> > > This multitude of choices is why PostgreSQL does not ship with a
> > > replication solution by default; any bundled solution would only
> > > satisfy a subset of replication needs.
> >
> > The problem is that we do have some solutions in our code, like doing
> > data partitioning in the application, warm standby, or using a shared
> > disk for failover, so how do we spell that out? I say there are
> > multiple solutions, but I don't see how I can say that all are external
> > and not included.
>
> Good point... how about this?

Sorry, that is too preachy, and I have the extensibility issue addressed
in the commerical solutions section.

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +