Re: Time to scale up? - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 1. A good portion of this is already done by outside packagers

So? Doesn't that mean that a lot of work could be saved if it was done
in one place?


>
> 2. There are very good reasons why things are done the way they are done

I'm sure there is. But the community has grown significantly over the
last couple of years and that trend is fairly stable. No organization
remains the same when growing. Some try and the die.


>
> 3. PostgreSQL.Org is a database, not a distribution, just as linux is
> a kernel not a distribution.

Perhaps to you it is. But to the vast majority of users that compare
PostgreSQL to MySQL or Oracle, it's much more then that. People rarely
talk about the "Linux kernel" as such. They use RHEL, Fedora, Novell,
etc. In contrast, people rarely talk about the distributions that the
outside packagers you mention make available.


>
> 4. In order for this to be, all coders would have to agree to adhere
> to PostgreSQL.Org coding conventions. That is pretty much a deal
> breaker right there.
>

Why would that be such a big deal? I wouldn't bother me one second. In
fact, I think that would be a good thing that could encourage developers
to broaden their knowledge of other parts of the code.


> 5. You seem to miss the point that your argument about plJava wasn't
> shot down by core. It was shot down by a LOT of people, of which a
> couple are in core.
>

Was it? Funny, when I go back and read that thread I see a different
picture. Tom expressed concerns about the #lines of code and code not
written in C. Some of the other core members shared his concern. A LOT
of other people liked the idea and very few besides the core members
were against it. Just goes to prove that perception is everything I guess.


> As for plruby, as far as I can tell the argument is not over yet.
> Plruby does not suffer nearly from the same objects that pljava does.
> Namely it is written in C. It would need to be cleaned up to adhere to
> the guidelines but that is about it.
>

That's unfair. There where two objections to PL/Java. #lines and some
code not written in C. It does not however suffer from coding convention
or licensing issues ;-)

Seriously. This is one of my main points. Adding pl/ruby just because it
is written in a language that the core members are comfortable with have
somewhat serious implications. Contributions to PostgreSQL should be
recognized on merits such as stability, feature richness, user base,
etc. A huge number of PostgreSQL users are using technology that the
core team doesn't want to manage. That's why it's time to change the
organization and let people in that are willing to take on such
responsibilities.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren