Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
Don Baccus writes: Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. I've not seen discussions about it here, and the two of the three most active developers (Jan and Tom) work for Great Bridge, not PostgreSQL, Inc... Vadim Mikheev and Thomas Lockhart work for PostgreSQL, Inc., at least in some form or another. Which *might* be construed as a reason for their perceived inactivity. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/peter-e/
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
From: "Nathan Myers" [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote: [snip] The logging in 7.1 protects transactions against many sources of database crash, but not necessarily against OS crash, and certainly not against power failure. (You might get lucky, or you might just think you were lucky.) This is the same as for most databases; an embedded database that talks directly to the hardware might be able to do better. If PG had a type of tree based logging filesystem, that it self handles, wouldn't that be almost perfectly safe? I mean that you might lose some data in an transaction, but the client never gets an OK anyways... Like a combination of raw block io and tux2 like fs. Doesn't Oracle do it's own block io, no? Magnus -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Programmer/Networker [|] Magnus Naeslund PGP Key: http://www.genline.nu/mag_pgp.txt -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Don Baccus writes: Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. "Advanced Replication and Distributed Information capabilities are also under development to meet specific business and competitive requirements for both PostgreSQL, Inc. and clients. Several of these enhanced PostgreSQL, Inc. developments may remain proprietary for up to 24 months, with availability limited to clients and partners, in order to assist us in recovering development costs and continue to provide funding for our other Open Source contributions. " Boy, I can just imagine the uproar this statement will cause on Slashdot when the world finds out about it. - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 11:31:37AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote: At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Don Baccus writes: Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. snip Boy, I can just imagine the uproar this statement will cause on Slashdot when the world finds out about it. That one doesn't worry me us much as this quote from the press release at http://www.pgsql.com/press/PR_5.html "We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time we are considering requests from a number of development companies and venture capital groups to join us in this process." Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality suppressing the competition. I realize this is probably just the typical deadline slip that we see on the public releases of pgsql itself, not a silent retraction of the promise to release the code (especially since some of the same core people are involved), but there is a difference: if I absolutely need something that's only in CVS right now, I can bite the bullet and use a snapshot server. With erserver, I'm stuck sitting on my hands, with a promise of future functionality. Well, not really sitting on my hands: working on other tasks, with the assumption that erserver will be there soon. I'd rather not roll my own in an incompatable way, and have to port or redo the custom parts. So, now I'm going into a couple critical, funding decision making meetings in the next few weeks. I was planning on being able to promise certain systems with concrete knowledge of what I will and won't be able to provide, and how much custom coding will be needed. Now, If the schedsule slips much more, I won't. It's even possible that the erserver's implementation won't fit my needs at all, and I'll be back rolling my own. I realize this sounds a bit ungrateful: they're giving away the code, after all, and potentially saving my a lot of work. It's just the contrast between the really open work on the core server, and the lack of a peep when the promised deadlines have rolled past that gets under my skin. I'd be really happy with someone reiterating the commitment to an open release, and letting us all know how badly the schedule has slipped. Remember, we're all here to help! Get everyone stomping bugs in code you're going to release soon anyway, and concentrate on the quasi-propriatary extensions. Ross
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: "We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time we are considering requests from a number of development companies and venture capital groups to join us in this process." Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality suppressing the competition. Well, this is just all 'round a bad precedent and an unwelcome path for PostgreSQL, Inc to embark upon. They've also embarked on one fully proprietary product (built on PG), which means they're not an Open Source company, just a sometimes Open Source company. It's a bit ironic to learn about this on the same day I learned that Solaris 8 is being made available in source form. Sun's slowly "getting it" and moving glacially towards Open Source, while PostgreSQL, Inc. seems to be drifting in the opposite direction. if I absolutely need something that's only in CVS right now, I can bite the bullet and use a snapshot server. This work might be released as Open Source, but it isn't an open development scenario. The core work's not available for public scrutiny, and the details of what they're actually up don't appear to be public either. OK, they're probably funding Vadim's work on WAL, so the idictment's probably not 100% accurate - but I don't know that. I'd be really happy with someone reiterating the commitment to an open release, and letting us all know how badly the schedule has slipped. Remember, we're all here to help! Get everyone stomping bugs in code you're going to release soon anyway, and concentrate on the quasi-propriatary extensions. Which makes me wonder, is Vadim's time going to be eaten up by working on these quasi-proprietary extensions that the rest of us won't get for two years unless we become customers of Postgres, Inc? Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative, leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a long time to just sit back and wait for PG, Inc to release eRServer. These developments are a major annoyance. - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:51:15PM -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote: On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 11:31:37AM -0800, Don Baccus wrote: At 05:42 PM 12/2/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Don Baccus writes: Exactly what is PostgreSQL, Inc doing in this area? Good question... See http://www.erserver.com/. snip Boy, I can just imagine the uproar this statement will cause on Slashdot when the world finds out about it. That one doesn't worry me us much as this quote from the press release at http://www.pgsql.com/press/PR_5.html "We expect to have the source code tested and ready to contribute to the open source community before the middle of October. Until that time we are considering requests from a number of development companies and venture capital groups to join us in this process." Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality suppressing the competition. For What It's Worth: In the three years (has it really been that long?) that I've been off and on Postgres mailing lists, I've probably seen at least 100 requests for replication, with about 40 of them mentioning implementing it themself. I'm pretty sure that being told "PostgreSQL Inc. is working on that" is not the only thing stopping it from happening. Most people just aren't up to making it happen. -- Adam Haberlach |"California's the big burrito, Texas is the big [EMAIL PROTECTED] | taco ... and following that theme, Florida is http://www.newsnipple.com| the big tamale ... and the only tamale that '88 EX500| counts any more." -- Dan Rather
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote: ... Will Great Bridge step to the plate and fund a truly open source alternative, leaving us with a potential code fork? If IB gets its political problems under control and developers rally around it, two years is going to be a long time to just sit back and wait for PG, Inc to release eRServer. I doubt that. There is an IB (Interbase) replication option today, but you must purchase it. That isn't so bad actually. PostgreSQL looks to be going that way too: base functionality is open source, periphial companies make money selling extensions. Besides simple master-slave replication is old news anyhow, and not terribly useful. Products like FrontBase (www.frontbase.com) have full shared-nothing cluster support too (FrontBase is commerical). Clustering is a much better solution for redundancy purposes that replication. Tom
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 03:47:19PM -0800, Adam Haberlach wrote: Where's the damn core code? I've seen a number of examples already of people asking about remote access/replication function, with an eye toward implementing it, and being told "PostgreSQL, Inc. is working on that". It's almost Microsoftesque: preannounce future functionality suppressing the competition. Well, I'll admit that this was getting a little over the top, especially quoted out of context. ;-) For What It's Worth: In the three years (has it really been that long?) that I've been off and on Postgres mailing lists, I've probably seen at least 100 requests for replication, with about 40 of them mentioning implementing it themself. I'm pretty sure that being told "PostgreSQL Inc. is working on that" is not the only thing stopping it from happening. Most people just aren't up to making it happen. Indeed. And it's only been less than a year that that response has been given. However, it is only in that same timespan that the functionality and performance of the core server gotten to the point were replication/remote access is one of immediately fruitful itches to scratch. We'll see what happens in the future. Ross
[HACKERS] RI Types
I am trying to set the update and delete rules that are returned from the ODBC driver and the spec has the following to say: SQL_NO_ACTION: If a delete of a row in the referenced table would cause a "dangling reference" in the referencing table (that is, rows in the referencing table would have no counterparts in the referenced table), then the update is rejected. (This action is the same as the SQL_RESTRICT action in ODBC 2.x.) What I need to know is if RI_FKey_noaction_del and RI_FKey_restrict_del procedures are functionally the same. The ODBC (which I would hope conforms to SQL 9x) spec has 4 types of RI (CASCADE, NO_ACTION, SET_NULL, SET_DEFAULT), and Postgres appears to have 5 (RI_FKey_cascade_del, RI_FKey_noaction_del, RI_FKey_restrict_del, RI_FKey_setdefault_del, RI_FKey_setnull_del), which leads me to belive that restrict and noaction are the same thing, and the one that is used depends on what the user puts in the REFERENCES line. Am I correct? Michael Fork - CCNA - MCP - A+ Network Support - Toledo Internet Access - Toledo Ohio On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Stephan Szabo wrote: It's representing a single null I believe. I'm not sure if in general it's an octal or decimal number but 3 digits for the value of the character. Stephan Szabo [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, Michael Fork wrote: What are these characters: \000 are they 3 nulls? a null followed by 2 zeros? The reason I have been asking is that I am adding foreign key support to the ODBC driver :)
Re: [HACKERS] RI Types
At 06:27 PM 12/2/00 -0500, Michael Fork wrote: I am trying to set the update and delete rules that are returned from the ODBC driver and the spec has the following to say: SQL_NO_ACTION: If a delete of a row in the referenced table would cause a "dangling reference" in the referencing table (that is, rows in the referencing table would have no counterparts in the referenced table), then the update is rejected. (This action is the same as the SQL_RESTRICT action in ODBC 2.x.) What I need to know is if RI_FKey_noaction_del and RI_FKey_restrict_del procedures are functionally the same. The ODBC (which I would hope conforms to SQL 9x) spec has 4 types of RI (CASCADE, NO_ACTION, SET_NULL, SET_DEFAULT), and Postgres appears to have 5 (RI_FKey_cascade_del, RI_FKey_noaction_del, RI_FKey_restrict_del, RI_FKey_setdefault_del, RI_FKey_setnull_del), which leads me to belive that restrict and noaction are the same thing, and the one that is used depends on what the user puts in the REFERENCES line. Am I correct? "RESTRICT" is a SQL3 thing, an extension to SQL92. It appears that the intent is that restrict should happen BEFORE the delete goes chunking its way through the tables, while noaction tries to delete then rolls back and gives an error if necessary. The final table entries are exactly the same for the RESTRICT and NOACTION cases, so the semantics in the sense of the transformation that occurs on the database are equivalent. Currently, PG treats NOACTION and RESTRICT as being the same, they're separated in the code with a comment to that effect, i.e. the code for NOACTION is duplicated for RESTRICT (in part to make it clear that in the future we might want to implement RESTRICT more efficiently if anyone figures out how). - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan. I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this signals for their future direction. Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It is a big job and difficult to do correctly. It is entirely my fault that you haven't seen the demo code released; I've been packaging it to make it a bit easier to work with. If PG, Inc starts doing proprietary chunks, and Great Bridge remains 100% dedicated to Open Source, I know who I'll want to succeed and prosper. Let me be clear: PostgreSQL Inc. is owned and controlled by people who have lived the Open Source philosophy, which is not typical of most companies in business today. We are eager to show how this can be done on a full time basis, not only as an avocation. And we are eager to do this as part of the community we have helped to build. As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be a few flaws... ;) - Thomas
[HACKERS] core dump? OID/database corruption?
An obscure series of events seems to cause a core dump and OID
corruption:
-- tolower function for varchar
create function varchar_lower(varchar) returns varchar
as '/usr/local/lib/pgcontains.so', 'pglower'
language 'c';
create index ztables_title_ndx on ztitles ( varchar_lower (title) ) ;
vacuum analyze ;
{ leave }
at some point come back
drop function varchar_lower (varchar) ;
create function varchar_lower(varchar) returns varchar
as '/usr/local/lib/pgcontains.so', 'pglower'
language 'c';
and strange things start to happen.
I realize that (and only belatedly) once I drop the function the index
is corrupt, but it seems there are invalid oids when I try to dump the
database, and dumping some tables caused a core dump.
I didn't save the data, I was in live service panic mode.
I have a shared library of functions I use in Postgres and I do a drop /
create for an install script. I realize this is a little indiscriminate,
and at least unwise, but I think postgres should be able to handle this.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 07:32:14PM -0800, Don Baccus wrote: At 02:58 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote: PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan. I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this . . . As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let me know. Red herring, and you know it. The question isn't whether or not your business generates income, but how it generates income. So far, Open Source doesn't. The VA Linux IPO made ME some income, but I'm not sure that was part of their plan... Your comment is the classic one tossed out by closed-source, proprietary software advocates who dismiss open source software out-of-hand. Couldn't you think of something better, at least? Like ... something original? The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be a few flaws... ;) That's a horrible analogy, and I suspect you know it, but at least it is original. It wasn't an analogy. In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up? -- Adam Haberlach |"California's the big burrito, Texas is the big [EMAIL PROTECTED] | taco ... and following that theme, Florida is http://www.newsnipple.com| the big tamale ... and the only tamale that '88 EX500| counts any more." -- Dan Rather
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past few years by volunteers. imho it does not, and if somehow you can read that into it then you have a much different understanding of language than I. I *am* one of those volunteers, and know that the hundreds of hours I have contributed is only a small part of the whole. My discussion on this is over; apologies to others for helping to waste bandwidth :( I'll be happy to continue it next over some beers, which is a much more appropriate setting. - Thomas
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
Thomas Lockhart wrote: PostgreSQL, Inc perhaps has that as a game plan. I'm not so much concerned about exactly what PG, Inc is planning to offer as a proprietary piece - I'm purist enough that I worry about what this signals for their future direction. Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It is a big job and difficult to do correctly. Well, this has nothing whatsoever to do with open or closed source. Linux and FreeBSD are much larger, much harder to do correctly, as they are supersets of thousands of open source projects. Complexity is not relative to licensing. If PG, Inc starts doing proprietary chunks, and Great Bridge remains 100% dedicated to Open Source, I know who I'll want to succeed and prosper. Let me be clear: PostgreSQL Inc. is owned and controlled by people who have lived the Open Source philosophy, which is not typical of most companies in business today. That's one of the reasons why it's worked... open source meant open contribution, open collaboration, open bug fixing. The price of admission was doing your own installs, service, support, and giving something back PG, I assume, is pretty much the same as most open source projects, massive amounts of contribution shepherded by one or two individuals. We are eager to show how this can be done on a full time basis, not only as an avocation. And we are eager to do this as part of the community we have helped to build. As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be a few flaws... ;) Well, whether or not a product is open, or closed, has very little to do with commercial success. Heck, the entire IBM PC spec was open, and that certainly didn't hurt Dell, Compaq, etc the genie coming out of the bottle _only_ hurt IBM. In this case, however, the genie's been out for quite a while BUT: People don't buy a product because it's open, they buy it because it offers significant value above and beyond what they can do *without* paying for a product. Linus didn't start a new kernel out of some idealistic mantra of freeing the world, he was broke and wanted a *nix-y OS. Years later, the product has grown massively. Those who are profiting off of it are unrelated to the code, to most of the developers why is this? As it is, any company trying to make a closed version of an open source product has some _massive_ work to do. Manuals. Documentation. Sales. Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention. Figuring out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating features. And building a _product_. Most Open Source projects are not products, they are merely code, and some horrid documentation, and maybe some support. The companies making money are not making better code, they are making better _products_ And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc. Want to make money from open source? Well, you have to find, or build, a _product_. Right now, there are no OS db products that can compare to oh, an Oracle product, a MSSQL product. There may be superior code, but that doesn't make a difference in business. Business has very little to do with building the perfect mousetrap, if nobody can easily use it. -Bop -- Brought to you from boop!, the dual boot Linux/Win95 Compaq Presario 1625 laptop, currently running RedHat 6.1. Your bopping may vary.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc. Mac OS X. ;-) -pmb -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "4 out of 5 people with the wrong hardware want to run Mac OS X because..." http://www.newertech.com/oscompatibility/osxinfo.html
Re: [HACKERS] core dump? OID/database corruption?
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [ drop function on which a functional index is based ] and strange things start to happen. All I get is messages like ERROR: fmgr_info: function 402432: cache lookup failed which is about what I'd expect. If you've seen a coredump in this situation, let's hear a more specific bug report. regards, tom lane
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
At 09:56 PM 12/2/00 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote: ... And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc. Want to make money from open source? Well, you have to find, or build, a _product_. Right now, there are no OS db products that can compare to oh, an Oracle product, a MSSQL product. There may be superior code, but that doesn't make a difference in business. Business has very little to do with building the perfect mousetrap, if nobody can easily use it. Which of course is the business model - certainly not a "zero revenue" model as Thomas arrogantly suggests - which OSS service companies are following. They provide the cocoon around the code. I buy RH releases from Fry's. Yes, I could download, but the price is such that I'd rather just go buy the damned release CDs. I don't begrudge it, they're providing me a real SERVICE, saving me time, which saves me dollars in opportunity costs (given my $200/hr customer billing rate). They make money buy publishing releases, I still get all the sources. We all win. It is not a bad model. Question - if this model sucks, then certainly PG, Inc's net revenue last year was greater than any true open source software company's? I mean, let's see that slam against the "zero revenue business model" be proven by showing us some real numbers. Just what was PG, Inc's net revenue last year, and just how does their mixed revenue model stack up against the OSS world? (NOT the .com world, which is in a different business, no matter what Thomas wants to claim). - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote: This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past few years by volunteers. imho it does not, Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so hard that it could only come about if someone were willing to finance a PROPRIETARY solution. The PG developer group couldn't manage it if it were done Open Source". In other words, it is much harder than any of the work done by the same group of people before they started working on proprietary versions. And that the only way to get them doing their best work is to put them on proprietary, or "semi-proprietary" projects, though 24 months from now, who's going to care? You've opened the door to IB prominence, not only shooting PG's open source purity down in flames, but probably PG, Inc's as well - IF IB can figure out their political problems. IB, as it stands, is a damned good product in many ways ahead of PG. You're giving them life by this approach, which is a kind of bizarre businees strategy. I *am* one of those volunteers Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering to test your code, and leaving on vacation. You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now. - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
At 09:29 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Adam Haberlach wrote: Red herring, and you know it. The question isn't whether or not your business generates income, but how it generates income. So far, Open Source doesn't. The VA Linux IPO made ME some income, but I'm not sure that was part of their plan... VA Linux is a HARDWARE COMPANY. They sell servers. "We've engineered 2U performance into a 1U box" is their current line. Dell probably makes more money on their Linux server offerings (I have to admit that donb.photo.net is running on one of their PowerEdge servers) than VA Linux does. If I can show you a HARDWARE COMPANY that is diving on selling MS NT servers, will you agree that this proves that the closed source and open source models both must be wrong, because HARDWARE COMPANIES based on each paradigm are losing money??? The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be a few flaws... ;) That's a horrible analogy, and I suspect you know it, but at least it is original. It wasn't an analogy. Sure it is. Read, damn it. First he makes the statement that a business based on open source is, by definition, a zero-revenue company then he raises the spectre of .com companies (how many of them are open source?) as support for his argument. OK, it's not an analogy, it's a disassociation with reality. Feel better? In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over this issue every three months? Maybe you don't care about the open source aspect of this, but as a user with about 1500 Open Source advocates using my code, I do. If IB comes forth in a fully Open Source state my user base will insist I switch. And I will. And I'll stop telling the world that MySQL sucks, too. Or at least that they suck worse than the PG world :) There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? (Yeah, that's extremist, but seeing PG, Inc. lay down the formal foundation for such co-opting by taking the first step might well make the potential reality become real. It certainly puts some of the long-term developers in no position to argue against such a co-opted snitch of the code). I have to say I'm feeling pretty silly about raising such an effort to increase PG awareness in mindshare vs. MySQL. I mean, if PG, Inc's efforts somehow delineate the hopes and goals of the PG community, I'm fairly disgusted. - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would allow others to co-op the code and commercialize it with no obligations. It is rather sad to see PG, Inc. take the first step in this direction. How long until the entire code base gets co-opted? I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things: 1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version = 6.5 2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Sectorbase.com, not by PG, Inc. Vadim
Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
Don Baccus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote: This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past few years by volunteers. imho it does not, Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so hard that it could only come about if someone were willing to finance a PROPRIETARY solution. The PG developer group couldn't manage it if it were done Open Source". snip - Don Baccus, Portland OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at http://donb.photo.net. Mr. Baccus, It is funny how you rant and rave about the importance of opensource and how Postgresql Inc. making an non-opensource product is bad. Yet I go to your website which is full of photographs and you make it a big deal about people should not steal your photographs and how someone must buy a commercial license to use them. That doesn't sound very 'open-source' to me! Why don't you practice what you preach and allow redistribution of those photographs? -- Prasanth Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
