On 8/17/2004 1:56 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Well, looks like I hit a nerve. Not intentionally, mind you, but all this
> talk in this thread has made Slony look to be third party. If it is not
> third party, then it needs more visibility.
Not your fault, and I don't think that anybody tries intentionally to
let it look like third party. It is probably a common misconception that
"company did development ... ergo result must be commercial or 3rd party
contribution". Not everyone is used to think of companies as legal
persons that can have the same rights and responsibilities as a natural
person within a group.
>
> To answer your next message, yes, I think this is an effect of unbundling from
> the main tarball things and stuffing them out to gborg to languish.
>
> I for one am excited about Slony's prospects. This package, once I get up to
> speed with it, is going to make my life a lot easier. I do, however, wish it
> were more prominently announced and, yes, I do wish it were more tightly
> integrated.
I have repeatedly stated that I think the PG version independance of
Slony makes it a rather bad idea to shrinkwrap the two together. But
that shouldn't mean that it can't be a substantial feature we consider
"available for PostgreSQL". It comes under the same license from the
same copyright holder. So wherever those two aren't an issue for using
PostgreSQL, using Slony can only be limited by technical reasons.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #