Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sean Utt wrote:
>>>
>>> As Joshua Drake has pointed out before, most of the core people
>>> working on PostgreSQL don't actually use it for anything themselves.
>>> I will expand a little on that and say that this means that while
>>> they are extremely good at what they do, they really don't have a
>>> clue what might be useful to someone "in the wild". Sort of like
>>> automotive engineers who in the 1970's made the Cadillac's engine so
>>> large that you couldn't change the spark plugs without taking the
>>> motor mounts loose and lifting the engine.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> This is both gratuitously offensive and based on a demonstrably false
>> premise. The definition of "core people working on PostgreSQL" is
>> somewhat vague. But if you were to take it as, say, the group of
>> active committers, then I would say that the majority of us earn our
>> living in whole or in part using PostgreSQL. Certainly I do (there's
>> a reason I use an elephant logo for my business).
>
> The consideration of my comment (which I believe was made some time
> ago) was not about -hacking which as I understand it is what you and
> most everyone else on -hackers does. My comment was a consideration to
> the amount of "core" that are managing postgresql in a production
> environment. E.g; being DBAs. I would argue that very few committers
> actually qualify as that either. Feel free to prove me wrong :)
>
>
I'm not going to bother trying, because you just moved the goalposts
(managing in a production environment vs using). And why should the
number of DBAs matter one whit? Why should they matter more than, say
application developers, when it comes to language level features?
cheers
andrew
