Re: status/timeline of pglogical?

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/16 4:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>> Hmm, my bad. Seems like what I thought was a long-standing practice
>> was long forgotten. FYI, here's where it was established:
>>
>>
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/200007280252.WAA05977@candle.pha.pa.us#200007280252.WAA05977@candle.pha.pa.us
>> (many, many years ago - man I feel old!).
>>
>> The resulting change to purge the docs (of the then single reference
>> to an external app) was in 530dc73cd18f4df708c0c998521a20f5f93f729a.
>
>
> What was removed then was the *man page* of pgadmin.
>
> Earlier in that thread, someone said:
>
> "It's certainly nice to mention related products, but maybe a reference page
> is not the most appropriate form"
>
> which someone later interpreted as an incentive to a purge. :-/
>
> I think these principles still apply today, and most in this thread appear
> to agree: Mention tools in the right context.

Right, but if you follow the thread through, later discussion is on
the docs in general.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company