I should have cross-posted this to pgsql-docs from the beginning, sorry for the mistake. For pgsql-docs readers: The issue is that the official documentation misleadingly omits the existence of Postgresql-XC: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.3/static/different-replication-solutions.html? > Synchronous Multimaster Replication *snip* > PostgreSQL does not offer this type of replication (...) Whereas the wiki says in http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Postgres-XC > Project Overview *snip* > Features of PG-XC include: *snip* > 2. Synchronous multi-master configuration Now back to the original thread: > Knowing the number of forks/projects based on Postgres, maintaining a > list on a wiki list the one below is just easier for everybody: > http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Replication,_Clustering,_and_Connection_Pooling That one doesn't even list PostgreSQL-XC. For how man years has it been around now... Can't even remember any more. Instead it lists Postgres-R, which has been in koma for how long now... Can't even remember any more. BTW; No, I don't suffer from that brain disease that makes you lose your memory (can't remember the name of it any more... ;-). > Perhaps this list is not completely up-to-date, To call that an understatement would be an euphemism. It's simply misleading. And misleading potential users in search of solutions for their needs is *bad* for the PostgreSQL project. > but not adding that in the core documentation facilitates the work of > core maintainers. It gives you all the information you need as well. Guys, are you really not aware to *that* point how badly you shoot yourself (and the PostgreSQL project as a whole) in the foot with that single - wrong - phrase in the "official" documentation: "PostgreSQL does not offer this type of replication" Reading that phrase, the average O***** DBA looking for a cheaper replacement will stop considering PostgreSQL and that's it. You're out of business. They won't look any further. Just stop arguing and put *one* *single* *phrase* in the official documentation instead like: "PostgreSQL itself does not provide this as a built-in functionality at the current stage, but there is an open-source "fork" freely available under the same license as PostgreSQL that does, for details read: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Postgres-XC"; Is that really too much work? Heck, give me write-authority on the documentation and I'll do it for you then. You've already wasted *way* more brain bandwidth and precious time arguing why that phrase is *not* there than it would take to put it there once for good. That's the kind of pointy-haired dysfunctionality I'd expect from a managed corporation, not from an open-source project. In fact I would guess that given how closely PostgreSQL-XC follows the releases of "pure" PostgreSQL and the fact that they use the same license, at some stage it may be merged entirely. Sincerely, Wolfgang -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
