>> 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?
Way to compare apples to houses their Bruce. We are talking about
*PostgreSQL* replication solutions. Not *Oracle* compatibility
functions, However, *if* we had an Oracle compatibility section, I would
say, "Yes it does make sense to list EnterpriseDB as a Proprietary
Commercial solution to migrating from Oracle.
> Why not mention MS SQL if they have a better solution?
Because we aren't talking about MS SQL, we are talking about PostgreSQL.
> 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.
It is no more arbitrary than including *any* information on PostgreSQL
replication solutions, because PostgreSQL doesn't have any.
PostgreSQL doesn't do replication, except for PITR (and that is pushing
it as a replication solution).
Now.. there are *projects* that enable PostgreSQL to do replication.
Some of them are Open Source, some of them are commercial products.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate