Re: PostgreSQL derivatives - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

On Thursday 05 June 2008 18:36:39 Greg Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote:
> > AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products.
>
> The wording in this article was a bit unfortunate.  Truviso does
> distribute open-source components as part of its product, but there's not
> a fully open-source "distribution" released publicly the way Bizgress and
> Postgres Plus are.
>
> This is fairly similar to the EDB situation when one is using their
> Postgres Plus Advanced Server, in that the database component of a Truviso
> install will feel like PostgreSQL in most respects to users, but with
> additional features available.  That is quite different from, say,
> Netezza, where you're not so obviously using PostgreSQL under the hood.
> So I think that Seth Grimes got the basic grouping right but didn't use
> the best terminology to describe the distinction.
>

But there isn't any floss software actually being shipped right? License/code
wise truviso and netezza are basically the same in that respect, even if
technologically truviso values postgres compatability higher, but there is no
floss distributing occuring, right?

> > And actually, I don't know of any contributions they have made directly
> > to the community.
>
> Don't make me start one of those discussions about how there are a lot of
> way to directly contribute to the community besides straight code writing.
> If we start it will get Joshua all worked up about that again.
>

Oh, I understand that, but I even with the other ways, I don't know where
Truvisio draws that line. Granted even if thier corporate policy is "never
work on postgres during business hours", we're still getting good returns
from them by keeping folks like yourself and/or neil close to the postgres
community. Certainly more than what we have seen from companies like Netezza.

> As already pointed out, there are some code contributions from Truviso in
> the works, but they haven't really solidifed into new visible features
> quite yet.  A distinction is this area is probably a better way to
> distinguish between the two groups Grimes was trying to point out.
> Truviso and EDB's products track the stock PostgreSQL enough that the two
> companies can usefully send code to the larger community.  If either
> company is sending in a patch, it's against HEAD just like any other
> contributor.  I don't think Netezza or even Greenplum are in that category
> anymore.
>

Hard to say. I think there is stuff in Greenplum that could be patched back to
HEAD without too much extra work (possibly on-disk bitmap indexes for
example), but there is certainly some areas where the code has drifted enough
to make contributing back a major undertaking.

> (Obligatory disclaimer:  Greg Smith works for Truviso but doesn't speak
> for Truviso in any capacity)
>

:-)

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL