Hi,

Andrew Hammond wrote:
> I can see value in documenting what replication systems are known to
> work (for some definition of work) with a given release in the
> documentation for that release. Five years down the road when I'm
> trying to implement replication for a client who's somehow locked into
> postgres 8.2 (for whatever reason), it would be very helpful to know
> that slony1.2 is an option. I don't know if this is sufficient
> justification.

Please keep in mind, that most replication solutions (that I know of)
are quite independent from the PostgreSQL version used. Thus,
documenting which version of PostgreSQL can be used with which version
of a replication system should better be covered in the documentation of
the replication system. Otherwise you would have to update the
PostgreSQL documentation for new releases of your favorite replication
system - which seems to lead to confusion.

> Including a separate page on the history of postgres replication to
> date also makes some sense, at least to me. It should be relatively
> easy to maintain.

I agree that having such a 'replication guide for users of PostgreSQL'
is a good thing to have. But I think not much of that should be part of
the official PostgreSQL documentation - mainly because the replication
solutions are not part of PostgreSQL.

Regards

Markus