Replication documentation addition
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: Lock partitions
Next: Piggybacking vacuum I/O
From: Andrew Sullivan on 26 Oct 2006 10:45 On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 05:46:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: > > So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would work. > > Yes. I like that idea, but I think that the URL needs to be decided upon, needs to be stable, and needs to be put into the docs. (I don't see it ATM, I guess because the URL isn't chosen yet?) We get so many questions about "what replication system" that I'm sure people are looking for outlines. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs(a)crankycanuck.ca In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant- garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. --Brad Holland ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
From: Alexey Klyukin on 25 Oct 2006 14:33 Hi, A typo: ("a write to any server has to be _propogated_") s/propogated/propagated Bruce Momjian wrote: > Here is a new replication documentation section I want to add for 8.2: > > ftp://momjian.us/pub/postgresql/mypatches/replication > > Comments welcomed. > > -- Regards, Alexey Klyukin alexk(at)vollmond.org.ua Simferopol, Crimea, Ukraine. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
From: Richard Troy on 26 Oct 2006 13:07 On Wed, 25 Oct 2006, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Bruce, > > > It isn't designed for that. It is designed for people to understand > > what they want, and then they can look around for solutions. I think > > most agree we don't want a list of solutions in the documentation, > > though I have a few as examples. > > Do they? I've seen no discussion of the matter. I think we should have > them. > > I completely agree; If you want to attract competent people from the business world, one thing you have to do is respect their time by helping them find information, especially about things they don't know exist. All that's needed are pointers, but the pointers need to be to solid documents/resources, not just the top of a heap - if you'll forgive the pun. Richard -- Richard Troy, Chief Scientist Science Tools Corporation 510-924-1363 or 202-747-1263 rtroy(a)ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
From: Richard Troy on 26 Oct 2006 13:35 > 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(a)ScienceTools.com, http://ScienceTools.com/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From: Robert Treat on 26 Oct 2006 15:06
On Thursday 26 October 2006 10:45, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 05:46:33PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Josh Berkus wrote: > > > So, like www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs/replication? That would > > > work. > > > > Yes. > > I like that idea, but I think that the URL needs to be decided upon, > needs to be stable, and needs to be put into the docs. (I don't see > it ATM, I guess because the URL isn't chosen yet?) We get so many > questions about "what replication system" that I'm sure people are > looking for outlines. > > A Unfortunately the techdocs system won't support a url like the one above, rather you'll end up with something more like the following http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs.54 which is the "GUI Tools Guide" (which is linked in the FAQ fwiw). Once it is in place, it will be stable though. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster |