Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >>>> Every time PostgreSQL is discussed, be that slashdot or LWN or other
> >>>> forums or even interviews with any of out competitors, the statement is
> >>>> "doesn't have replication". If we avoid the topic in our 8.0 press
> >>>> release and leave out the word replication, instead of pointing to the
> >>>> reasons why it is *better not to have replication builtin*, we will
> >>>> lose. People will read the press release, don't see the word
> >>>> replication, so "No Replication - checkmark".
> >>>
> >>> Except that "Have Replication" to those claiming 'No Replicatin' means
> >>> "Integrated with the Server", we still don't *have* Replication in their
> >>> minds, no matter how many external projects that do it we mention ;(
> >>
> >> Both Joshua Drake and Marc sell commercial replication solutions. Do
> >> you think it is fair of the community to mention BSD-licensed
> >> replication solutions in our press release while not mentioning
> >> commercial ones?
> >>
> >> I do.
> >
> > Bruce is not alone here. The community does not exist to promote
> > commericial solutions.
>
> Bruce is mis-representing the facts of this argument, and summarizing them
> as he sees ... in fact, I believe the only one here that advocated *for*
> promoting a commercial solution was Jan ... I know I didn't, I'm
> advocating that this Press Release is for PostgreSQL RBMS 8.0.0, *not* for
> Add On software (commercial *or* open source) ...
We have historically mentioned add-ons as appropriate. I think you are
suggesting not mentioning slony because we already have covered
replication, but I think others have said it is dramatically different
that it deserves a mention.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073