Thread: PostgreSQL Project list for 2003
Hi everyone,
Was just thinking about key developments that would be interesting to
get up and running for PostgreSQL in the 2003 year.
First one that came to mind is this:
- PostgreSQL Win32 installation package
(PostgreSQL binary for Win32 + integrated GUI)
* One-file downloadable full installation package
* Installs PostgreSQL as a "service" on WinNT/2K/XP
* Reasonable default memory configuration
* Includes one of the good PostgreSQL cross-platform
GUI's. PgAccess?
* No real end-user maintenance tasks for simple setups
Auto-vacuums, auto-reindexes, auto-?
* Includes inbuilt shortcuts to start/stop PostgreSQL,
and to the included tools (PgAccess)
* (maybe) By default, use XLOG files that are smaller
than 16MB to reduce the installed footprint size
for small setups.
Interesting potential results that spring to mind:
Bringing PG to the attention of, and into everyday usage by, a large
group of existing developers, some of whom will develop the GUI.
With a small-footprint (and fully functional) auto-maintaining PG
installation, integration with other products would be much more
practical. Would be interesting to see if the OpenOffice developers
would find it suitable then, if nothing had already been included as
their default database.
Probably heaps of other benefits too (lowering migration risks and costs
from say MS SQL, etc)
Thankfully, none of this sounds like rocket science, just something that
would take a bit of time and effort to make reality.
Reckon this might be worth doing?
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 12:26, Justin Clift wrote: > - PostgreSQL Win32 installation package > (PostgreSQL binary for Win32 + integrated GUI) This is a very good idea, IMHO, although I have some reservations about the specifics. > * Reasonable default memory configuration This strikes me as a *bad* idea. What's "reasonable"? Part of the reason why shared_buffers configuration is non-trivial is that the "right" values can be difficult for a DBA to figure out -- it seems a lot more difficult to get a piece of software to do it automatically. And if we can't make a guess that will be appropriate for most users, they'll need to configure the software themselves anyway. Also, gratioutisly changing the behavior or default settings of PostgreSQL on different platforms just seems like a bad path to start going down. > * Includes one of the good PostgreSQL cross-platform > GUI's. PgAccess? There's also PgAdmin II for Win32. > * No real end-user maintenance tasks for simple setups > Auto-vacuums, auto-reindexes, auto-? IMHO, it would be sufficient to wait for the proper implementation of this for mainstream PostgreSQL, and then include it in the package -- and then ask the user "Enable auto-vacuum?" Not sure if anyone is working on auto-reindex, but my understanding is that > * (maybe) By default, use XLOG files that are smaller > than 16MB to reduce the installed footprint size > for small setups. Again, not a good idea, IMHO. > With a small-footprint (and fully functional) auto-maintaining PG > installation, integration with other products would be much more > practical. Would be interesting to see if the OpenOffice developers > would find it suitable then, if nothing had already been included as > their default database. Well, PostgreSQL can't be all things to all people -- and one thing it is not is an embedded database. Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Justin Clift wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Was just thinking about key developments that would be interesting to > get up and running for PostgreSQL in the 2003 year. > > First one that came to mind is this: > > - PostgreSQL Win32 installation package > (PostgreSQL binary for Win32 + integrated GUI) > > * One-file downloadable full installation package > * Installs PostgreSQL as a "service" on WinNT/2K/XP > * Reasonable default memory configuration > * Includes one of the good PostgreSQL cross-platform > GUI's. PgAccess? Why would it need to be cross-platform? Myself, I'd go with PgAdmin ..
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Justin Clift wrote: <snip> > > * Includes one of the good PostgreSQL cross-platform > > GUI's. PgAccess? > > Why would it need to be cross-platform? Myself, I'd go with PgAdmin .. PgAdmin is definately good, but the thought about cross platform is because the included GUI (i.e. PgAccess) would probably garner further development and *that* would then mean everyone's platform receives the benefits instead of just the one. It's only a suggestion, but that's the reasoning behind it. :) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Justin Clift wrote: > PgAdmin is definately good, but the thought about cross platform is > because the included GUI (i.e. PgAccess) would probably garner further > development and *that* would then mean everyone's platform receives the > benefits instead of just the one. > > It's only a suggestion, but that's the reasoning behind it. True, but isn't Dave working towards a cross-platform interface? Personally, the guy that is co-ordinating the PgAccess development now has turned me off with his attitude, and, I believe, Josh isn't too impressed with him either ... he tends to have a very much 'do it my way or no way' attitude, which is *not* condusive to a long term, open source project ...
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
<snip>
> True, but isn't Dave working towards a cross-platform interface?
Haven't been following its development recently, but that would be a
really useful.
Just emailed him to ask. :)
> Personally, the guy that is co-ordinating the PgAccess development now has
> turned me off with his attitude, and, I believe, Josh isn't too impressed
> with him either ... he tends to have a very much 'do it my way or no way'
> attitude, which is *not* condusive to a long term, open source project ...
Ouch. That kind of attitude ("my way or the highway") isn't good.
Ok, write PgAccess off then. :-/
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
"Marc G. Fournier" wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Justin Clift wrote: > > > PgAdmin is definately good, but the thought about cross platform is > > because the included GUI (i.e. PgAccess) would probably garner further > > development and *that* would then mean everyone's platform receives the > > benefits instead of just the one. > > > > It's only a suggestion, but that's the reasoning behind it. > > True, but isn't Dave working towards a cross-platform interface? Ok, Dave just confirmed PgAdmin is going cross-platform. Cool. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi
Include the IPC daemon for win32, assuming you still need it.
My biggest concerns for the future though are replication and longhorn.
Longhorn being the operating system that follows WinXP and it has a SQL
server-based file system. Regardless of whether it is the "Right thing to
do" or not (technically or politically), I think there will eventually be
demand for a Linux equivalent, particularly if OSS is to dominate the
server room. There are only 2 open source databases currently up to the
task, Firebird and PostgreSQL. Maybe by the time it comes out MySQL will be
a real database by then. But whatever is available, the solution should be
able to replace SQL Server on the back end and provide equivalent services
for other OSs (Linux). I have no idea what it entails, it's actually
somewhat over my head in several respects. It'll probably have something to
go with .Net as well. It might just be some file system <-> blob functions,
I don't know.
Also that adds to the replication/backup bit because real-time fail over is
going to be needed if people are going to put vital files in the database,
and have them propagate corporate-wide. (I'm thinking about offices across
the globe)
One thing is certain. If PostgreSQL can provide it first, usage and
awareness will too.
-J
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Justin Clift
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2002 12:27 PM
To: PostgreSQL Advocacy Mailing List
Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] PostgreSQL Project list for 2003
Hi everyone,
Was just thinking about key developments that would be interesting to
get up and running for PostgreSQL in the 2003 year.
First one that came to mind is this:
- PostgreSQL Win32 installation package
(PostgreSQL binary for Win32 + integrated GUI)
* One-file downloadable full installation package
* Installs PostgreSQL as a "service" on WinNT/2K/XP
* Reasonable default memory configuration
* Includes one of the good PostgreSQL cross-platform
GUI's. PgAccess?
* No real end-user maintenance tasks for simple setups
Auto-vacuums, auto-reindexes, auto-?
* Includes inbuilt shortcuts to start/stop PostgreSQL,
and to the included tools (PgAccess)
* (maybe) By default, use XLOG files that are smaller
than 16MB to reduce the installed footprint size
for small setups.
Interesting potential results that spring to mind:
Bringing PG to the attention of, and into everyday usage by, a large
group of existing developers, some of whom will develop the GUI.
With a small-footprint (and fully functional) auto-maintaining PG
installation, integration with other products would be much more
practical. Would be interesting to see if the OpenOffice developers
would find it suitable then, if nothing had already been included as
their default database.
Probably heaps of other benefits too (lowering migration risks and costs
from say MS SQL, etc)
Thankfully, none of this sounds like rocket science, just something that
would take a bit of time and effort to make reality.
Reckon this might be worth doing?
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org