Re: [DOCS] 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