Re: PostgreSQL derivatives - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

I updated my blog article.  I hope this text improves the accuracy:

     And note that of those companies, only EnterpriseDB distributes an
open-source product, Postgres Plus, which adds MPP and other capabilities
to base PostgreSQL. A Truviso press release does state, "Truviso-sponsored
improvements are expected to be included in the next release of
PostgreSQL, scheduled for early 2009."

If Aster Data Systems (nCluster), Dataupia, Greenplum, or Netezza is
giving back to open-source PostgreSQL, I'd like to know about it for a
follow-on article.  That article would also mention DATAllegro's use of
Ingres and possibly Eigenbase/LucidDB.  Netezza forked Postgres so long
ago that I would guess, by the way, that their code stream isn't
compatible enough with PostgreSQL for there to be anything that could be
included.

                     Seth

On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote:

> 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)
>>
>
> :-)
>
>

--
Seth Grimes   Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management
               Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor
grimes@altaplana.com       http://altaplana.com    301-270-0795