Tom Lane wrote:
Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects
(like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will
have double digits in version number component
Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9?
As for Ruby, it probably won't expect >
David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects
> (like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will
> have double digits in version number component
Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9?
In p
Dave Page wrote:
From: David Garamond
Sent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AM
Cc: postgresql advocacy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if
From: David GaramondSent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AMCc: postgresql advocacy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to
Ð ÐÐÑ, 05.06.2004, Ð 10:28, David Garamond ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> This probably has been discussed and is probably a very minor point, but
> consider how many more years we want to be able to use the digit>. major release numbering.
>
> Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
> t
This probably has been discussed and is probably a very minor point, but
consider how many more years we want to be able to use the . major release numbering.
Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 -> 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip t
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Peter wrote:
>> Also note that most major number
>> changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because
>> the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move
>> happening.
> Now that is interesting. I missed that. Can y
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:18:51PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote:
> >
> > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
>
> I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows.
> They weren't necessarily happy, of
> > > Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them
> > seen to think
> > > that it's important for expanding our userbase:
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=9
> > That does not say that better entertainment will attract new
> > viewers, just that the existing v
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000
> > > machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1
> > > Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5
> > > MySQL 4.0.12
> > > Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0
> > > Informix Dynamic Server 9.2
> > >
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we
> >
> >find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the
> >child run those same routines. I can show you examples of what I have
> >done and walk you throu
> -Original Message-
> From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:23 AM
> To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
>
>
> ---
--- Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000
> machine I am typing this message from.
> DB/2 7.1
> Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5
> MySQL 4.0.12
> Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0
> Informix Dynamic Server 9.2
> (Also SapDB, Firebird serv
> -Original Message-
> From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:39 AM
> To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
>
> --- Da
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ow) wrote:
> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
I haven't seen Sybase on Windows (only barely have seen it anywhere,
fitting with the comment made that it hides in the lucrative financial
industry); I _have_ se
Marek,
> Maybe it's a good time to think about PostgreSQL's marketing strategy &
> identity. Maybe this great DBMS should be changed in all areas - not
> only in technical related fields ?
If your interest is "marketing" PostgreSQL, please join the Advocacy list.
That goes for anyone on this lis
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote:
>
> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows.
They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the
time.
As for Sybase, you don't see that bec
--- Rocco Altier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote:
>
> > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
>
> I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real
> thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product
iAnywh
ow wrote:
Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2
or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same.
Then you need to get out more. I have seen Oracle, Sybase, DB2 (and
probably Informix, I forget) all running on Windows in a numbe
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote:
> Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real
thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product (a
remote replication solution for PocketPC applications), Windo
--- Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which feature is requested more than that?
Not sure how often features are requested and by whom. However, if you take a
look at the TODO list, you'll find plenty of stuff more important than win32
port.
> Of the following (which includes every signifi
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we
find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the
child run those same routines. I can show you examples of what I have
done and walk you through areas that need work. If you look at t
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from
> > core can indicate
> > > how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code
> > > rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this.
> >
> > http://momjian.po
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from
> core can indicate
> > how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code
> > rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this.
>
> http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.h
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > Here's the situation as I see it:
> > . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port
> > . this is important to some people and not important to others
> > . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work
> > has been
Uz.ytkownik Jean-Michel POURE napisa?:
For me, this makes 60% of the market at least.
A 1% to 60% is not a small difference, it is a real gap.
Don't forget that success isn't always connected with technical things
(very good example is MySQL :-)) - PostgreSQL needs a good marketing,
clear strate
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Here's the situation as I see it:
> . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port
> . this is important to some people and not important to others
> . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work
> has been done, and more is being done
>
> Isn
> > Claudio Natoli wrote:
Claudio Natoli wrote nothing of the sort :-P
---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html";>http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html
--
Le Mardi 18 Novembre 2003 06:21, Greg Stark a écrit :
> Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens
> of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a
> pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean
> it's useful.
Dear Gre
Uz.ytkownik Andrew Dunstan napisa?:
Claudio Natoli wrote:
As for release numbering, ISTM that is not fundamentally very important.
At my former company we had code names for branches and decided release
names/numbers near release time in accordance with marketing
requirements. Let's not get h
Claudio Natoli wrote:
I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a
production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser
quality, or otherwise inferior?
Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost)
always worse per
> > I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a
> > production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser
> > quality, or otherwise inferior?
>
> Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost)
> always worse perfomance when
Użytkownik Shachar Shemesh napisał:
Dave Page wrote:
Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in
Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't
know if it's actually right unless we try it.
We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL o
Shachar Shemesh wrote:
I'm sorry if I'm being alow here
alow->slow
Just wanted to avoid confusion.
--
Shachar Shemesh
Open Source integration consultant
Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will
Dave Page wrote:
Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in
Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't
know if it's actually right unless we try it.
We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32', but
the chances are that t
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 18 November 2003 09:23
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Josh Berkus; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
> Dave Page write
Dave Page writes:
> Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them seen to think
> that it's important for expanding our userbase:
> http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1&SurveyID=9
That survey is a bit like asking television viewers, "What do you think
would attract the most new
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be
> > appropriate.
>
> It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its
> feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature
> equivalent to an Oracle
Dann Corbit writes:
> > > Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.
> >
> > No, it does not.
>
> Really?
>
> What's this then?
> http://www.cygwin.com/licensing.html
The Cygwin license, the GPL, specifically says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
cover
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 November 2003 23:31
> To: Josh Berkus
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
> Josh Berkus writes:
>
>
c: Matthew T. O'Connor; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark;
PostgreSQL Development
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dann Corbit writes:
At the risk of stating the obvious: Cygwin is your friend
in exactly
this case.
Yes, but how
> -Original Message-
> From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:39 PM
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
>
>
> --- Christopher
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on
dozens of
OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a
pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't
mean it's
useful.
I don
--- Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the
> world's servers (or whatever it is) "just another port".
Statistics is a tricky thing. IMHO, there are plenty of things that are much
more important than win32 por
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:34 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Matthew T. O'Connor; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark;
> PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-
Dann Corbit writes:
> > At the risk of stating the obvious: Cygwin is your friend in
> > exactly this case.
>
> Yes, but how friendly is it?
What are you asking here? Is it easy to install and use? Yes.
> Cygwin requires a license for commercial use.
No, it does not.
--
Peter Eisentraut [
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:04 PM
> To: Matthew T. O'Connor
> Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the
> > world's servers (or whatever it is) "just another port".
> >
> > It could conveivably double Postgres's target audience, could attract heaps
> > of new users, new devel
Matthew T. O'Connor writes:
> Absolutely! In addition, even if you don't consider win32 a platform to
> run production databases on, the win32 port will help developers who
> work from windows boxes, which is the certainly the most widely used
> desktop environment.
At the risk of stating the ob
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on
dozens of
OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a
pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't
mean it's
useful.
I don't call porting Postgres to run
Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of
OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a
pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's
useful.
I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the
Mike Mascari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) PITR
> 2) Distributed Tx
> 3) Replication
> 4) Nested Tx
> 5) PL/SQL Exception Handling
Of these PITR seems *by far* the most important. It makes the difference
between an enterprise-class database capable of running 24x7 with disaster
recovery plans
Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Also note that most major number
> > changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because
> > the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move
> > happening.
>
> Now that is interesting. I missed that. Can you explain how that worked
>
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be
> appropriate.
It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its
feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature
equivalent to an Oracle 8.0 database. That woul
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? Seems like
> even 7.4 is hardly recognizable as the same database as 7.0.
Discussion like this tends to be more for just before beta, once we have
an idea what actually made it in :) You be pu
> As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the
> least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to
Yes but these are people running Unix/Linux/BSD not Windows ;)
> have to come up with better reasons. Also note that most major number
> changes i
Hello,
If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be
appropriate.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Of course, while I was editing press releases at 2am, I started thinking about
> our next version. It seems certain tha
Peter,
> As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the
> least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to
> have to come up with better reasons.
Yeah, I'm more interested in ARC and replication ... and the SQL
standardization that just went into
Josh Berkus writes:
> Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0?
As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the
least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to
have to come up with better reasons. Also note that most major numbe
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It seems certain that the next release, in 6-9 months, will have at
> a minimum the Windows port and ARC, if not Slony-I as well.
>
> Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0?
It seems a little premature to speculate on what features may
60 matches
Mail list logo