I don’t see that, beyond the fact that we all love PostgreSQL (the product, not the name!); we would like it to be recognised as one of the world’s best RDBMS applications – commercial and open source; we would like it to be accessible worldwide (with all the cultural, language and other issues that entails); and we would like it to be perceived as being accessible for everyone (advanced but easy to use.
I think what people think about PostgreSQL is a way to the objectives but I think the objective is:
To be the best database bar none.
This is why we're proud to be "The world's most advanced open source database."
From this object flow some principles. I write we below in the royal sense because I don't contribute code or anything. I just evangelize, quietly.
1. We have a good idea how databases should work we are working to evolve PostgreSQL closer to that ideal.
2. We want as many good contributions to the project as possible.
Breaking those points down again yields:
1.1. We are not going to add cross db joins, index hints, etc.
1.2. We are going to add X, Y, Z features.
2.1. We want as many good contributors as possible.
2.1.1. We want to be as popular and useful as possible for the kind of people who would contribute.
2.1.1.1. We want to be as popular as possible because that would expose potential hackers to PosrgreSQL.
2.1.1.1.1. We want people to think X, Y, Z when they think PostgreSQL.
....
I know thats all kind of semantic but it puts things into perspective. For example a slogan that alienates hackers would probably not be good. I can't really help with that though.
While I'm writing who normally choses the database in an organization or for a project? Where I've been its always been one of the first senior developers. After the choice your pretty much stuck with it. The suits don't really care so long as it doesn't cost too much money and the license doesn't prevent them from doing what they want to do. PostgreSQL is golden on both those counts.
Nik
