Re: beta testing version - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:49:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> 
> > 
> > IIRC, this thread woke up on someone complaining about PostgreSQl inc
> > promising 
> > to release some code for replication in mid-october and asking for
> > confirmation 
> > that this is just a schedule slip and that the project is still going on
> > and 
> > going to be released as open source.
> > 

That would be me asking the question, as a reply to Don's concern regarding
the 'prorietary extension on a 24 mo. release delay'

> > What seems to be the answer is: "NO, we will keep the replication code
> > proprietary".
> > 
> > I have not seen this answer myself, but i've got this impression from
> > the contents 
> > of the whole discussion.
> > 
> > Do you know if this is the case ?
> 
> If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas
> himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his
> part.  

Actually, Thomas said:

Thomas> Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in the past? It
Thomas> is a big job and difficult to do correctly. It is entirely my
Thomas> fault that you haven't seen the demo code released; I've been
Thomas> packaging it to make it a bit easier to work with.

I noted the use of the words "demo code" rather than "core code". That
bothered (and still bothers) me, but I didn't reply at the time,
since there was already enough heat in this thread. I'll take your
interpretation to mean it's just a matter of semantics.

> [...] Vadim did up the software days before the Oracle OpenWorld
> conference, but it was a very rudimentary implementation.  At the show,
> Thomas dove in to build a basic interface to it, and, as time permits, has
> been working on packaging to get it into contrib before v7.1 is released
> ...
> 
> I've been trying to follow this thread, and seem to have missed where
> someone arrived at the conclusion that we were proprietarizing(word?) this
> ... we do apologize that it didn't get out mid-October, but it is/was
> purely a scheduale slip ...
> 

Mixture of the silent schedule slip on the core code, and the explicit
statement on the erserver.com page regarding the 'proprietary extensions'
with a delayed source release.

The biggest problem I see with having core developers making proprietary
extensions is the potentional for conflict of interest when and if
some of us donate equivalent code to the core. The core developers who
have also done proprietary  versions will have to be very cautious
when working on such code. They're in a bind, with two parts.  First,
they have obligations to their employer and their employer's partners
to not release the closed work early. Second, possibly ignoring such
independent extensions, or even actively excluding them for the core,
in favor of their own code. The core developers _do_ have a bit of a
track record favoring each others code over external code, as is natural:
we all trust work more from sources we know better, especially when that
source is ourselves. But this favoratism could work against the earliest
possible open solution.

I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support replication.
Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I have a feeling
the approach may not be the one I was hoping for. 

Ross