Re: [HACKERS] monolithic distro (was: Re: Fwd: Three weeks left until feature freeze)
Lukas, all: So what I am suggesting is that PostgreSQL.org should push people towards the monolithic distro. The docs should contain everything that is in the monolithic distro. At conference we should say the name of the monolithic distro etc. The issue I think you're ignoring is that maintaining such a distro and its build system for a reasonable number of platforms would require an enormous amount of work ... like, 3-4 full-time developers and at least a dozen part-time developers. Compare the staff requirements for Debian, Red Hat or SuSE. I can tell you from being the Bizgres admin for a few months that just trying to maintain/debug a build system that would do PostgreSQL + JasperReports + KETL + 4 optional modules on four platforms was easily 20-30 hours of work, *per release*. So this isn't something we can just vote into existance. Second with endorsing or certifying projects on pgFoundry and elsewhere, who has the time? To rate stuff as mature/not mature a committee of PostgreSQL people would have to be constantly reviewing projects, every single month, and probably getting into long political debates to boot. If we do less, a repeat of the libpq++/libpqxx mess is inevitable. It's very nice to throw these things out there and put them on the TODO list ... and if I had $100,000 in development money to throw at something, I might spend it that way ... but to propose them as *immediate* solutions to problems for 8.2 is fantasy. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
[HACKERS] monolithic distro (was: Re: Fwd: Three weeks left until feature freeze)
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a distribution that is more and the kitchen sink style. I do not know exactly if Bizgres could be considered just that? Or maybe it could get promoted to be that? Lukas, that is what www.mammothpostgresql.org is :) Doh, yes .. totaly forgot about that one. Again I think it makes absolute sense to have a nicely sized core for all the friendly forks to base their work on. However I think all newbie PR should be directed at the monolithic distro and not to that nicely sized core. Cluefull people that want to create their own PostgreSQL distro will naturally gravitate to PostgreSQL, while newbies come to PostgreSQL right now. They dont find the feature they are looking for, and we miss out on getting them into PostgreSQL. So what I am suggesting is that PostgreSQL.org should push people towards the monolithic distro. The docs should contain everything that is in the monolithic distro. At conference we should say the name of the monolithic distro etc. Again, the truely cluefull people will naturally gravitate to the PostgreSQL core project while the monolithic distro sucks in the newbies. regards, Lukas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] monolithic distro (was: Re: Fwd: Three weeks left
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Lukas Smith wrote: Joshua D. Drake wrote: Aside from obviously the big issue of who maintains all the pgfoundry stuff, I also think that the PostgreSQL family would benefit from a distribution that is more and the kitchen sink style. I do not know exactly if Bizgres could be considered just that? Or maybe it could get promoted to be that? Lukas, that is what www.mammothpostgresql.org is :) Doh, yes .. totaly forgot about that one. Again I think it makes absolute sense to have a nicely sized core for all the friendly forks to base their work on. However I think all newbie PR should be directed at the monolithic distro and not to that nicely sized core. Cluefull people that want to create their own PostgreSQL distro will naturally gravitate to PostgreSQL, while newbies come to PostgreSQL right now. They dont find the feature they are looking for, and we miss out on getting them into PostgreSQL. So what I am suggesting is that PostgreSQL.org should push people towards the monolithic distro. The docs should contain everything that is in the monolithic distro. At conference we should say the name of the monolithic distro etc. Again, the truely cluefull people will naturally gravitate to the PostgreSQL core project while the monolithic distro sucks in the newbies. But, that isn't our role ... that should be the role of whomever takes on the role of 'maintainer' for such a monolithic distribution ... its no more our role to decide that pl/Java is better or worse then pl/J ... our role is to provide that core for everyone else to build around ... People like CommandPrompt, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB, Pervasive ... they have the funding to *create* and maintain that, to make sure all the parts they distribute are working properly ... The resources are there, if someone (you?) wants to do this as a FOSS project, but I fear that amount of work (both time and energy) required to make the 'include all, for all' distribution is much much greater then the returns will be ... the more you add in, the more you have to co-ordinate releases with the external projects, and pull/push old/new stuff in as it becomes 'stale', etc ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
