Обсуждение: Mentioning Slony in docs

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

Mentioning Slony in docs

От
Simon Riggs
Дата:
IMHO it would be appropriate to provide better links to Slony from
within the Postgres docs.

The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code
and it is of course BSD licenced.

Now that this has been highlighted to me, I can't see a reason for the
previous balanced approach.

--
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

От
Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Am Donnerstag, 8. November 2007 schrieb Simon Riggs:
> The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code
> and it is of course BSD licenced.

Why is that a reason for mentioning it more prominently?  Is "code ownership"
a relevant property?

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

От
Simon Riggs
Дата:
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:10 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 8. November 2007 schrieb Simon Riggs:
> > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code
> > and it is of course BSD licenced.
>
> Why is that a reason for mentioning it more prominently?

It's not, I'm assuming you'd actually like to see it more prominent.

My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.

--
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com


Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

От
Tom Lane
Дата:
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
> the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.

The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
fits everyone's needs.  I don't think the core docs should be pushing
Slony more than other solutions.

            regards, tom lane

Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

От
Bruce Momjian
Дата:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
> > the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.
>
> The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
> fits everyone's needs.  I don't think the core docs should be pushing
> Slony more than other solutions.

We do mention Slony for in-place upgrades because if its capabilities to
work across Postgres versions.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

The definition of PGDG

От
"Greg Sabino Mullane"
Дата:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


Simon Riggs wrote:
> The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we
> own the code and it is of course BSD licenced.

As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined
group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG
actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take
a stab at it?

IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have
the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux)
or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may
be what we actually have anyway.

Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200711081016
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHMyqrvJuQZxSWSsgRAw0hAJ9DD2gwr4nlmeoPNPeifXTloWip6ACgwv9z
WQTV1ccmRQ0EBbomxQUxeak=
=zng7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The definition of PGDG

От
Robert Treat
Дата:
On Thursday 08 November 2007 10:38, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we
> > own the code and it is of course BSD licenced.
>
> As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined
> group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG
> actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take
> a stab at it?
>
> IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have
> the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux)
> or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may
> be what we actually have anyway.
>
> Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer.

AFAICT we have the former (code is owned by respective owners). AIUI, in most
European countries copyright is considered naturally given rights that you
have and that you cannot give away.  In the U.S., you can give copy rights
away, however you can only do so to a defined legal entity, of which the PGDG
is not one.  This can change somewhat depending on country and depending upon
employer agreements, but since no one is employed by the PGDG, it's mostly
moot from what I can tell.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Re: Mentioning Slony in docs

От
Decibel!
Дата:
On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to
>>> all of
>>> the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.
>>
>> The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
>> fits everyone's needs.  I don't think the core docs should be pushing
>> Slony more than other solutions.
>
> We do mention Slony for in-place upgrades because if its
> capabilities to
> work across Postgres versions.

I'm pretty sure Skytools/Londiste works across versions too.
Presumably, any replication that's not based on binary format should
work.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828



Вложения