Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: [GENERAL] PG replication across DataCenters)

I should have cross-posted this to pgsql-docs from the beginning, sorry
for the mistake.

For pgsql-docs readers:

The issue is that the official documentation misleadingly omits the
existence of Postgresql-XC:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/different-replication-solutions.html?

> Synchronous Multimaster Replication

*snip*

> PostgreSQL does not offer this type of replication (...)

Whereas the wiki says in http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Postgres-XC

> Project Overview

*snip*

> Features of PG-XC include:

*snip*

> 2. Synchronous multi-master configuration

Now back to the original thread:

> Knowing the number of forks/projects based on Postgres, maintaining a
> list on a wiki list the one below is just easier for everybody:
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Replication,_Clustering,_and_Connection_Pooling

That one doesn't even list PostgreSQL-XC.

For how man years has it been around now...
Can't even remember any more.

Instead it lists Postgres-R, which has been in koma for how long now...
Can't even remember any more.

BTW; No, I don't suffer from that brain disease that makes you lose your
memory (can't remember the name of it any more... ;-).

> Perhaps this list is not completely up-to-date,

To call that an understatement would be an euphemism.

It's simply misleading. And misleading potential users in search of
solutions for their needs is *bad* for the PostgreSQL project.

> but not adding that in the core documentation facilitates the work of
> core maintainers. It gives you all the information you need as well.

Guys, are you really not aware to *that* point how badly you shoot
yourself (and the PostgreSQL project as a whole) in the foot with that
single - wrong - phrase in the "official" documentation:

"PostgreSQL does not offer this type of replication"

Reading that phrase, the average O***** DBA looking for a cheaper
replacement will stop considering PostgreSQL and that's it. You're out
of business. They won't look any further.

Just stop arguing and put *one* *single* *phrase* in the official
documentation instead like:

"PostgreSQL itself does not provide this as a built-in functionality at
the current stage, but there is an open-source "fork" freely available
under the same license as PostgreSQL that does, for details read:

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Postgres-XC"

Is that really too much work? Heck, give me write-authority on the
documentation and I'll do it for you then. You've already wasted *way*
more brain bandwidth and precious time arguing why that phrase is *not*
there than it would take to put it there once for good. That's the kind
of pointy-haired dysfunctionality I'd expect from a managed corporation,
not from an open-source project.

In fact I would guess that given how closely PostgreSQL-XC follows the
releases of "pure" PostgreSQL and the fact that they use the same
license, at some stage it may be merged entirely.

Sincerely,

Wolfgang