From: | Josh berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: status/timeline of pglogical? |
Date: | 2016-05-11 17:07:57 |
Message-ID: | 573366ED.6060908@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 05/11/2016 09:35 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> I strongly oppose recommending any non-core 'stuff' in the docs or
>>> press releases/announcements (including pgAdmin 4).
Well, the line I was going to add was this:
Version 9.6 Beta 1 also makes [changes to the binary backup
API](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/functions-admin.html#FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-BACKUP-TABLE).
Users should test version 9.6 with PostgreSQL backup tools, including
pgBackRest, Barman, WAL-E, and other packaged and in-house software.
Users may also wish to test
[pglogical](https://github.com/2ndQuadrant/pglogical/), the newest
logical replication system for PostgreSQL, currently in beta.
... none of that is "recommending" anything; it's all about "please test
these things", which is what a beta announcement is *for*. It also
doesn't hurt us at all to show a lot of activity on the replication front.
However, given that it's less than 24 hours before the beta release, I
don't see that we can get consensus on this before it needs to go out,
so taking that line out.
I'll work on a separate beta announcement with the 2Q folks for later.
--
--
Josh Berkus
Red Hat OSAS
(any opinions are my own)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-05-11 17:16:05 | Re: status/timeline of pglogical? |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2016-05-11 16:35:30 | Re: status/timeline of pglogical? |