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
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 single
digit.single digit 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
, 05.06.2004, 10:28, David Garamond :
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 single
digit.single digit major release numbering.
Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 - 7.4.0 = +- 1 year),
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 8.0
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 we
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
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=1SurveyID=9
That does not say that better entertainment will attract new
viewers, just that the existing viewers think
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 course,
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 you explain
-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:
Given all that, don't people think it's
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
covered by this
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.
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=1SurveyID=9
That survey is a bit like asking television viewers, What do you think
would attract the most new
-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 writes:
Least interesting to many
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
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
Uytkownik Shachar Shemesh napisa:
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
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 we
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
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
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 Greg,
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
a
href=http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html;http://www.memetrics.com/em
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't it
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
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 done, and
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.html
No,
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.
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
--- 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
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),
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
--- 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
iAnywhere is a
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
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 list who
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_
-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 ?
--- Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which
--- 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 server,
-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
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 through areas
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
(Also SapDB, Firebird
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 or
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
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 that
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 in
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
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 would
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
with 7.0?
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, and
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
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
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
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 developers, new
-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 8.0 ?
Matthew T. O'Connor writes
-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-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dann
--- 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 port.
-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 Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
56 matches
Mail list logo
