From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: "Comparison of Different Solutions" |
Date: | 2017-09-27 02:11:46 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaCRQGiq++SdRo2HWQz3dsWiKxOmYLBa+=+5vk5q7x74g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 7:00 PM, Jaime Casanova <
jaime(dot)casanova(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 31 May 2017 at 03:40, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> >
> > In "26.1 Comparison of Different Solutions", nothing is mentioned with
> > logical replication. I think the section is the biggest picture for
> > all high availability, load Balancing, and replication solutions in
> > the docs
>
> actually i wonder why Logical Replication is chapter 31 instead of
> being in this same chapter
>
The original complaint has been addressed with a blurb and a
cross-reference.
As for keeping separate the new logical replication docs from the
long-standing physical replication docs I don't see any particular
problem. My understanding is that the former is whole-database and serves
more of an administrative capability (backups, high-availability) for the
server, while the later, despite having to be configured by the server
admin, plays more of an application role.
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | petr.lancaric | 2017-09-27 11:01:41 | Wrong COPY command synopsis |
Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2017-09-27 02:00:14 | Re: "Comparison of Different Solutions" |