Re: [DOCS] Replication documentation addition

> The documentation comes with the open source tarball.

Yuck.

>
> 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.

I wouldn't have looked in "download" for such a thing. Nor would I expect
everyone with a Postgres related solution to want to post it on
PosgreSql.org for download.

However I agree that a simple web page listing such things is needed. It's
easy to manage - way easier to manage than the development of a competent
relational database engine! It's just a bunch of text, after all, and
errors aren't that critical and will tend to self-correct through user
attention.

> >
> > 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).

You have to just trust people. If it's clear that "this isn't
PostgreSql.org", stuff can be unstable, etc - it isn't the group's
problem.

> > 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.

Not necessarily. Most times, I'll seek the better solution, which may or
may not be commercial. Sometimes I'll avoid a commercial version because I
don't like the company!

... But getting genuine donations of time - without direct $$
self-interest attached, is a whole nother kettle o fish. For example,
there are a lot of students out there that are excellent and would love to
have a mechanism to gain something for their resumes before entering the
business world. ...There might be some residual interest at UCB, for
example. Attracting this kind of support is a completely different
dialogue, but on _this_ topic, surely seeking the "it wants to be free!"
crowd can't (or shouldn't, in my view) be used as an excuse for not
publishing pointers to commercial soltions that involve PostgreSql. Do it
already!

> >> 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.

The "may" is a wiggler; sounds like an excuse with a back door. The real
answer is "probably not!" I'm in that world. I haven't been briefed. Ever.

> 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.

All that's needed is ONE list, with clear disclaimer. It'll be all text
and links, and maybe the odd small .gif logo, if permitted, so it won't be
a huge thing. Come on now, are there thousands of such products? Tens
sounds more plausible.

Regards,
Richard

--
Richard Troy, Chief Scientist
Science Tools Corporation
510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263
rtroy(at)ScienceTools(dot)com, http://ScienceTools.com/