Replication documentation addition
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: Lock partitions
Next: Piggybacking vacuum I/O
From: Steve Atkins on 25 Oct 2006 00:10 On Oct 24, 2006, at 8:48 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Josh Berkus wrote: >>> Bruce, >>> >>>> I have updated the text. Please let me know what else I should >>>> change. >>>> I am unsure if I should be mentioning commercial PostgreSQL >>>> products in >>>> our documentation. >>> >>> I think you should mention the postgresql-only ones, but just >>> briefly with a >>> link. Bizgres MPP, ExtenDB, uni/cluster, and Mammoth Replicator. >> >> And to further this I would expect that it would be a subsection.. >> e.g; >> a <sect2> or <sect3>. I think the open source version should >> absolutely >> get top billing though. > > I am not inclined to add commercial offerings. If people wanted > commercial database offerings, they can get them from companies that > advertize. People are coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions, > and I think mentioning commercial ones doesn't make sense. > > If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't > worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies. I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions. I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have. I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of them. A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and extensions that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document. Cheers, Steve ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
From: Steve Atkins on 25 Oct 2006 00:27 On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Steve Atkins wrote: >>> If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't >>> worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies. >> >> I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming >> to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions. >> >> I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have. >> I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial >> or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of >> them. >> >> A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and >> extensions >> that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just >> because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql >> and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document. > > OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle > functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I > just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to > include. > Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL? It just > seems very arbitrary to include commercial software. If someone wants > to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't > seems as official. Good question. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. It's basically your judgement, tempered by other peoples feedback, though. If it were me, I'd ask myself "Would I mention this product if it were open source? Would mentioning it help people using the document?". Cheers, Steve ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
From: Cesar Suga on 25 Oct 2006 02:51 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. If you cite a commercial solution, as a fair game you should cite *all* of them. 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. 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. As Bruce stated, then should the documentation contemplate EnterpriseDB's Oracle functions? Should PostgreSQL also come with it? Wouldn't it be painful to make, say, another description for an alternate product other than EnterpriseDB if it arises? If people (who read the documentation) professionally work with PostgreSQL, they may already have been briefed by those commercial offerings in some way. I think only the source and its tightly coupled (read: can compile along with, free as PostgreSQL) components should be packaged into the tarball. However, I find Bruce's unofficial wiki idea a good one for comparisons. Regards, Cesar Steve Atkins wrote: > > On Oct 24, 2006, at 9:20 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Steve Atkins wrote: >>>> If we are to add them, I need to hear that from people who haven't >>>> worked in PostgreSQL commerical replication companies. >>> >>> I'm not coming to PostgreSQL for open source solutions. I'm coming >>> to PostgreSQL for _good_ solutions. >>> >>> I want to see what solutions might be available for a problem I have. >>> I certainly want to know whether they're freely available, commercial >>> or some flavour of open source, but I'd like to know about all of them. >>> >>> A big part of the value of Postgresql is the applications and >>> extensions >>> that support it. Hiding the existence of some subset of those just >>> because of the way they're licensed is both underselling postgresql >>> and doing something of a disservice to the user of the document. >> >> OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle >> functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I >> just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to include. >> Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL? It just >> seems very arbitrary to include commercial software. If someone wants >> to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't >> seems as official. > > Good question. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. It's basically > your judgement, tempered by other peoples feedback, though. If it > were me, I'd ask myself "Would I mention this product if it were open > source? Would mentioning it help people using the document?". > > Cheers, > Steve > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
From: Hannu Krosing on 25 Oct 2006 03:37 Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2006-10-24 kell 22:57, kirjutas Bruce Momjian: > I don't think the PostgreSQL documentation should be mentioning > commercial solutions. IMNSHO, having commercial solutions based on postgresql which extend postgres in directions not (yet?) done by core postgres is nothing to be ashamed of. And we should at least mention the OSS version of Bizgres as a place where quite a lot of initial development is done on performance improvements considered too risky for mainline postgresql. And if you need a more technical reason, you can use free libpq and psql to connect to even Bizgres MPP ;) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Luke Lonergan wrote: > > Bruce, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: pgsql-hackers-owner(a)postgresql.org > > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(a)postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:16 PM > > > To: Hannu Krosing > > > Cc: PostgreSQL-documentation; PostgreSQL-development > > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Replication documentation addition > > > > > > > > > OK, I have updated the URL. Please let me know how you like it. > > > > There's a typo on line 8, first paragraph: > > > > "perhaps with only one server allowing write rwork together at the same > > time." > > > > Also, consider this wording of the last description: > > > > "Single-Query Clustering..." > > > > Replaced by: > > > > "Shared Nothing Clustering > > ----------------------- > > > > This allows multiple servers with separate disks to work together on a > > each query. > > In shared nothing clusters, the work of answering each query is > > distributed among > > the servers to increase the performance through parallelism. These > > systems will > > typically feature high availability by using other forms of replication > > internally. > > > > While there are no open source options for this type of clustering, > > there are several > > commercial products available that implement this approach, making > > PostgreSQL achieve > > very high performance for multi-Terabyte business intelligence > > databases." > > > > - Luke > -- ---------------- Hannu Krosing Database Architect Skype Technologies OÜ Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia Skype me: callto:hkrosing Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
From: Shane Ambler on 25 Oct 2006 06:52
Bruce Momjian wrote: > OK, does that mean we mention EnterpriseDB in the section about Oracle > functions? Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution? I > just don't see where that line can clearly be drawn on what to include. > Do we mention Netiza, which is loosely based on PostgreSQL? It just > seems very arbitrary to include commercial software. If someone wants > to put in on a wiki, I think that would be fine because that doesn't > seems as official. I agree that the commercial offerings shouldn't be named directly in the docs, but it should be mentioned that some commercial options are available and a starting point to find more information. If potential new users look through the docs and it says no options available for what they want or consider they will need in the future then they go elsewhere, if they know that some options are available then they will look further if they want that feature. something like "There are currently no open source solutions available for this option but there are some commercial offerings. More details of some available solutions can be found at postgresql.org/support/...." -- Shane Ambler pgSQL(a)007Marketing.com Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster |