Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>Maybe also a more generic section about how PGSQL is different from
>other databases. Maybe I'm just dense, but it took me a long time to
>figure out the whole lack of stored procedures thing (yes, PGSQL
>obviously has the functionality, but many experienced DBAs won't
>associate functions with stored procs). Pointing out the documentation
>on MVCC and how it changes how you want to use the database would be
>good, as would links to documentation on what postgresql.conf settings
>you want to change out of the box.
>
>
>
I think this is a good idea. And you seem to be suggesting that it
includes information on differences in nomenclature as well.
>On the other topics...
>I think the biggest service PGSQL could provide to the open source
>community is a resource that teaches people with no database experience
>the fundamentals of databases. If people had an understanding of what a
>RDBMS should be capable of and how it should be used, they wouldn't pick
>MySQL.
>
>
I think that this is incredibly important. Many many developers choose
MySQL because MySQL really does make the effort in this regard. This
strategy has helped both MySQL and Red Hat become the commercial
successes they are today.
>Having a windows port is critical for 'student mindshare'. If PGSQL can't
>play on windows, professors can't use it. Likewise, installation on OS X
>should be made as easy as possible.
>
>
PostgreSQL *can* play on Windows (via Cygwin) and I am not sure that
this is so important to student mindshare. Howener, it is important for
another reason: a windows port (even one labled "for development use
only") would go a LONG way towards recruiting new faces into our
community, as it would lower the barrier to entry for using the database
(yes, the Cygwin installer because of the ipc stuff is a reasonable
barrier to entry).
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting
