Thread: PostgreSQL Certification
Hi, I would like to know what the people on the list think about the creation of a PostgreSQL Official Certification Standard. Is there anything like this being developed? I remenber that this was one of the itens in an advocacy TODO list that Justin sent once to the list. IMHO It would bring several benefits like: - Creating a standard in PostgreSQL training all over the world. - Creating a certification on which people and companies could truly rely on. - Preventing people who never contributed to the project in any way to make money with certification and bring money to people who would dedicate some time to the comunity. - It would make the community a little bit stronger, I guess. I know that's easy to say, but not to do. I'm really willing to help any effort in this direction. My Regards, -- Diogo Biazus diogo@ikono.com.br http://www.ikono.com.br
Diogo Biazus wrote: > > Hi, I would like to know what the people on the list think about the > creation of a PostgreSQL Official Certification Standard. > Is there anything like this being developed? > I remenber that this was one of the itens in an advocacy TODO list that > Justin sent once to the list. > IMHO It would bring several benefits like: > > - Creating a standard in PostgreSQL training all over the world. > - Creating a certification on which people and companies could truly > rely on. > - Preventing people who never contributed to the project in any way to > make money with certification and bring money to people who would > dedicate some time to the comunity. > - It would make the community a little bit stronger, I guess. > > I know that's easy to say, but not to do. I'm really willing to help any > effort in this direction. This seems very hard to do. How do we decide which companies qualify? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Hello, Anything like this would probably need to be set up like the LPI is setup. Perhaps a non profit supported by major PostgreSQL backers? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Bruce Momjian wrote: >Diogo Biazus wrote: > > >>Hi, I would like to know what the people on the list think about the >>creation of a PostgreSQL Official Certification Standard. >>Is there anything like this being developed? >>I remenber that this was one of the itens in an advocacy TODO list that >>Justin sent once to the list. >>IMHO It would bring several benefits like: >> >>- Creating a standard in PostgreSQL training all over the world. >>- Creating a certification on which people and companies could truly >>rely on. >>- Preventing people who never contributed to the project in any way to >>make money with certification and bring money to people who would >>dedicate some time to the comunity. >>- It would make the community a little bit stronger, I guess. >> >>I know that's easy to say, but not to do. I'm really willing to help any >>effort in this direction. >> >> > >This seems very hard to do. How do we decide which companies qualify? > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > Anything like this would probably need to be set up like the LPI is > setup. Perhaps a non > profit supported by major PostgreSQL backers? Yes, we could do that, but with structure, there comes power, and with power, arguments. Is it worth the risk? I would like to see more benefit than just certification before I think such a bureaucracy is worth it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: >>- Creating a standard in PostgreSQL training all over the world. >>- Creating a certification on which people and companies could truly >>rely on. >>- Preventing people who never contributed to the project in any way to >>make money with certification and bring money to people who would >>dedicate some time to the comunity. >>- It would make the community a little bit stronger, I guess. >> >> >This seems very hard to do. How do we decide which companies qualify? > > First we would have to define what a certified person should be able to do, and then develop a descriptive document. The company which is trying to get the certification would send the program of the course, and it will have to fit in some predefined rules like the certification exam. Perhaps the company would pay a fee to a non-profit organization (like Joshua wrote in another email) in order to suport the certification structure. Other benefit is that it's an incentive for those who want to work with PostgreSQL training in their countries, after all it would be an internationaly recognized certificate, this makes the taining course more atractive. And it's good for the database adminitrators too. We could count on the regional contacts (me for example) to make the necessary translations and contacts. I know that the third item on my list may be not a very good idea, that's why I want to discuss it. But to have a standard in certification programs would be very good apart from that. My regards, -- Diogo Biazus diogo@ikono.com.br http://www.ikono.com.br
>Yes, we could do that, but with structure, there comes power, and with >power, arguments. Is it worth the risk? > > > Probably not. Who would be a part of it? PgSQL, Command Prompt, Red Hat, SRA? Seems like a pretty big hassle. >I would like to see more benefit than just certification before I think >such a bureaucracy is worth it. > > > Personally, I don't see a need. There are two Linux certifications of any relevance, only one of those actually matters (yes I know I contradicted myself). That is the RedHat one. Also, although certification has some merit I would rather see our attention go more towards marketing and converting developers. Sincerely, Joshua Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
The world rejoiced as jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote:
>>Yes, we could do that, but with structure, there comes power, and with
>>power, arguments. Is it worth the risk?
>>
> Probably not. Who would be a part of it?
>
> PgSQL, Command Prompt, Red Hat, SRA? Seems like a pretty big hassle.
And it begs the question of what the _specific_ value of it is
supposed to be.
The merit of Oracle certification is that it allows you to "put out
your shingle" and be able to claim competence to (accept a DBA
job|attract an Oracle contract).
In contrast, if someone has (Informix|DB/2|Anything Less Popular)
certification, this represents, at most, some _vague_ indication that
they know something about some database.
The only way for a PostgreSQL 'certification' to be of much value
would be if we could expect that hundreds/thousands of people would
GET HIRED as a result of having the certification. That doesn't seem
too likely in any near term, which would make the process, yes,
indeed, a pretty futile "big hassle."
I don't think that terribly many people have actually GOTTEN HIRED as
a result of having LPI Linux certification; the RHAT courses may be
_marginally_ more valuable simply in view of the hefty cost
associating some cachet of value to them, but only marginally so.
What _would_ be valuable would be for there to be some form of
"professional development." The valuable (and expensive) form of that
would be to catch one or another of the "Open Source" conferences with
a PostgreSQL track, such as the Portland thing last summer.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'ntlug.org';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/multiplexor.html
"Never insult seven men, when all you're packin' is a six gun"
--- Zane Gray
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Christopher Browne wrote: > What _would_ be valuable would be for there to be some form of > "professional development." The valuable (and expensive) form of that > would be to catch one or another of the "Open Source" conferences with > a PostgreSQL track, > such as the Portland thing last summer. And next summer also. Rod -- "Open Source Software - Sometimes you get more than you paid for..."
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Diogo Biazus wrote: I've been out of this for so long I can't be sure but isn't there some generic DBA/DBM certification processes to build on? > First we would have to define what a certified person should be able to > do, and then develop a descriptive document. > The company which is trying to get the certification would send the > program of the > course, and it will have to fit in some predefined rules like the > certification exam. [BIG snip] Rod -- "Open Source Software - Sometimes you get more than you paid for..."
Chris, > What _would_ be valuable would be for there to be some form of > "professional development." The valuable (and expensive) form of that > would be to catch one or another of the "Open Source" conferences with > a PostgreSQL track, such as the Portland thing last summer. Well, the valuable thing about the certification is not the certification itself but the certification *course*. Currently, I get asked questions about PostgreSQL training and PostgreSQL certifications a *lot*; I just got back from PHPCon, for example, and 4 people there asked me about professional training. So what we need are professional training courses that provide some basic level of PostgreSQL competency. If we have those training courses, then the certificate becomes "icing on the cake"; it lets the bean-counters justify the cost for existing employees, and trainees beef up there resume'. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >Yes, we could do that, but with structure, there comes power, and with > >power, arguments. Is it worth the risk? > > > > > > > Probably not. Who would be a part of it? > > PgSQL, Command Prompt, Red Hat, SRA? Seems like a pretty big hassle. > > >I would like to see more benefit than just certification before I think > >such a bureaucracy is worth it. > > > > > > > Personally, I don't see a need. There are two Linux certifications of any > relevance, only one of those actually matters (yes I know I contradicted > myself). > That is the RedHat one. > > Also, although certification has some merit I would rather see our attention > go more towards marketing and converting developers. One more point --- I often get questions from folks no familiar with open source who want to know who controls PostgreSQL (of course, no one). But, if we had a foundation, even in name only, they would think the foundation controls PostgreSQL development and features. They just _want_ to think someone is in central control, and having a foundation just confuses the issue. They have to understand PostgreSQL is run by consensus and anything that confuses that makes our job harder in getting them to understand open source. I just had a conference call today where this exact confusion came up. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus) wrote: > Chris, > >> What _would_ be valuable would be for there to be some form of >> "professional development." The valuable (and expensive) form of that >> would be to catch one or another of the "Open Source" conferences with >> a PostgreSQL track, such as the Portland thing last summer. > > Well, the valuable thing about the certification is not the > certification itself but the certification *course*. Currently, I > get asked questions about PostgreSQL training and PostgreSQL > certifications a *lot*; I just got back from PHPCon, for example, > and 4 people there asked me about professional training. > > So what we need are professional training courses that provide some > basic level of PostgreSQL competency. If we have those training > courses, then the certificate becomes "icing on the cake"; it lets > the bean-counters justify the cost for existing employees, and > trainees beef up there resume'. I did a tutorial last weekend, with somewhat mixed results. I had two parts to it, which I could not have conceivably gone through in the 3.5h I had available. - Part I was a quick review of relational algebra, essentially answering the question "what's the point of relational databases?", followed by the tutorial from the PostgreSQL documentation set. - Part II walked through a bunch of the "nifty bits," motivating PG features that are particularly useful/nifty, and why. - A quick sprint through normalization; - MVCC; - Quick list of performance tuning actions; - Sequences (and their use) - Backups - Why avoid NULLs? - A review of security - Some of the "idioms" (e.g. - what to do rather than MAX(COLUMN)) - Licensing Issues I sprinted through most of it. Got one report back that the performance tuning material was pretty useful. The "borrowed-tutorial" is probably 4 hours to present properly, and I think it's not rightly targeted to a "course." The problem is that what it ISN'T is a document that gives an internally coherent view of either SQL or PostgreSQL functionality. It rather rather has, as its target, people that need material that helps scatter their attention across the features, and where the lack of internal coherence is _perfectly fine_ because it links to other parts of the documentation set which supports the "comprehensive" aspect. An example of a more comprehensive tutorial is the following: <http://firstsql.com/tutor.htm> It nicely presents a structure of the major aspects of SQL functionality, and seems a better model for an "SQL overview," at least for "teaching" purposes. A proper "curriculum" needs to cover a pretty comprehensive set of material, including SQL-in-Detail, as well as an hour or two apiece on topics like MVCC, backups, sequences, stored procedures, triggers, rules, and probably a number of others, complete with examples as well as "war stories." Doing this right won't be particularly cheap. And the places where it would be valuable are those where the approach would be for a "consultant" (or more likely a team of two) to go in for two or three days to present material at a company planning adoption of PostgreSQL. There's a bit of chicken-and-egg to that; it's not worth preparing curriculum unless there is interest, and there won't be interest unless someone has proven curriculum. -- output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spiritual.html "What you said you want to do is roughly equivalent to nailing horseshoes to the tires of your Buick." -- danceswithcrows@usa.net on the question "Why can't Linux use Windows Drivers?"
Josh Berkus wrote: > Chris, > > > What _would_ be valuable would be for there to be some form of > > "professional development." The valuable (and expensive) form of that > > would be to catch one or another of the "Open Source" conferences with > > a PostgreSQL track, such as the Portland thing last summer. > > Well, the valuable thing about the certification is not the certification > itself but the certification *course*. Currently, I get asked questions > about PostgreSQL training and PostgreSQL certifications a *lot*; I just got > back from PHPCon, for example, and 4 people there asked me about professional > training. > > So what we need are professional training courses that provide some basic > level of PostgreSQL competency. If we have those training courses, then the > certificate becomes "icing on the cake"; it lets the bean-counters justify > the cost for existing employees, and trainees beef up there resume'. I did the training in Atlanta and we only had a few people for the course. If there are tons of people who want training, they aren't coming to my course. :-( However, I will try to keep offering it every 6 months just so we can say we have a full-week training course. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Josh Berkus writes: > So what we need are professional training courses that provide some basic > level of PostgreSQL competency. If we have those training courses, then the > certificate becomes "icing on the cake"; it lets the bean-counters justify > the cost for existing employees, and trainees beef up there resume'. A brief look around showed me for example the following training courses for PostgreSQL: http://www.dextra.com.br/servicos/treinamento/pg/postgres.htm http://www.postgresql.org/events/168.html http://www.bignerdranch.com/Classes/Postgresql.html http://www.linuxhotel.de/postgres.html I'm sure there are a lot more. Just imagine for a moment the real effort one would have to go through to even informally harmonize the curricula between the courses, and then make that curriculum fit into the other constraints that such an event comes with. That sounds impossible to me. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
> One more point --- I often get questions from folks no familiar with > open source who want to know who controls PostgreSQL (of course, no > one). But, if we had a foundation, even in name only, they would think > the foundation controls PostgreSQL development and features. They just > _want_ to think someone is in central control, and having a foundation > just confuses the issue. They have to understand PostgreSQL is run by > consensus and anything that confuses that makes our job harder in > getting them to understand open source. I just had a conference call > today where this exact confusion came up. I don't have any personal strong preferences currently against a foundation nor for the foundation. However, looking at the Mozilla Foundation and realizing the two projects (Mozilla and PostgreSQL) are quite different, the idea in general might still be worth some discussion. Kaarel
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 06:24:16PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> The only way for a PostgreSQL 'certification' to be of much value
> would be if we could expect that hundreds/thousands of people would
> GET HIRED as a result of having the certification. That doesn't seem
That would require at least hundreds of companies to be advertising
for PostgreSQL DBAs. A quick scan of the standard job boards doesn't
turn that up. Maybe we should try working more on that. No need to
flood a demand-less world with supply.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:36:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> one). But, if we had a foundation, even in name only, they would think
> the foundation controls PostgreSQL development and features. They just
> _want_ to think someone is in central control, and having a foundation
> just confuses the issue. They have to understand PostgreSQL is run by
Thought I'd mention that I too have had this experience. It is
especially difficult in the era of Linux, because people think of
Linux as being controlled by him (and in some sense it is). So they
want to know who controlls PostgreSQL. Indeed, even the "core"
developer group is fetishized (in the Marxian sense) by certain
manager types I've met.
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:36:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > one). But, if we had a foundation, even in name only, they would think > > the foundation controls PostgreSQL development and features. They just > > _want_ to think someone is in central control, and having a foundation > > just confuses the issue. They have to understand PostgreSQL is run by > > Thought I'd mention that I too have had this experience. It is > especially difficult in the era of Linux, because people think of > Linux as being controlled by him (and in some sense it is). So they > want to know who controlls PostgreSQL. Indeed, even the "core" > developer group is fetishized (in the Marxian sense) by certain > manager types I've met. Yes, and to the extent we centralize control, we take away control from the larger group, which is where the control really belongs. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Andrew, Bruce, > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 11:36:11PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > one). But, if we had a foundation, even in name only, they would think > > the foundation controls PostgreSQL development and features. They just > > _want_ to think someone is in central control, and having a foundation > > just confuses the issue. They have to understand PostgreSQL is run by > > Thought I'd mention that I too have had this experience. It is > especially difficult in the era of Linux, because people think of > Linux as being controlled by him (and in some sense it is). I'll concur with this issue; I can't count the number of times I've said "PostgreSQL Inc., a private company not directly associated with the PostgreSQL Global Development Group" when recommending Geoff and his crew. Americans (and presumably others) are just not comfortable thinking about anarchistic organizations (and no, that's not an oxymoron). They want an Authority to be in charge. Sort of makes you sad for the state of political consciousness .... Anyway, regarding certification, I was more thinking that one-to-several of the current PG support vendors would develop a curriculum, and then several major contributors + core group members would review & approve it. I do think we need a foundation (and will have one) but for fundraising only; it's important that such a foundation have no authority over the program. And I do think it's important that we don't end up with 4 competing certifications each supported by only one vendor. That way lies madness. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
<snip>
> Anyway, regarding certification, I was more thinking that one-to-several of
> the current PG support vendors would develop a curriculum, and then several
> major contributors + core group members would review & approve it. I do
> think we need a foundation (and will have one) but for fundraising only; it's
> important that such a foundation have no authority over the program.
As a PgSQL Inc. Platinum Partner, I'd choose a PGDG approved
Certification. We have a PostgreSQL curriculum in Turkey; but I'm pretty
aware that an PGDG-approved one would sound better to people; with a
...err...signed certification from PGDG.
BTW, I've been thinking of directly fundraising PGDG directly for a while
so I'm glad to hear that we are closer to it.
Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim@gunduz.org devrim.gunduz@linux.org.tr
http://www.tdmsoft.com
http://www.gunduz.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/nVirtl86P3SPfQ4RAhlHAJwKVbQAWSIBwW6l1o4+vhTTjcz5GACfcKhM
TVviEKVUy2nKoG95FSZbhNE=
=XB2T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Josh Berkus wrote: >I'll concur with this issue; I can't count the number of times I've said >"PostgreSQL Inc., a private company not directly associated with the >PostgreSQL Global Development Group" when recommending Geoff and his crew. >Americans (and presumably others) are just not comfortable thinking about >anarchistic organizations (and no, that's not an oxymoron). They want an >Authority to be in charge. Sort of makes you sad for the state of political >consciousness .... > > Sure, it happens here in Brazil in a similar way. >Anyway, regarding certification, I was more thinking that one-to-several of >the current PG support vendors would develop a curriculum, and then several >major contributors + core group members would review & approve it. > That's a good idea, but to review that curriculum it would be good to have some predefined criteria, that's when the standard comes. >I do think we need a foundation (and will have one) but for fundraising only; it's >important that such a foundation have no authority over the program. > I agree, but in the case of the certification the foundation could be responsible for approving the curriliculum with major contributors + core group members. >And I do think it's important that we don't end up with 4 competing >certifications each supported by only one vendor. That way lies madness. > Here in Brazil we already have 2 certification programs, and the way that PgSQL is becoming popular around here I expect this number to grow in a near future. If it's dificult to make a standard now, maybe in some years it will become nearly impossible. My Regards, -- Diogo Biazus diogo@ikono.com.br http://www.ikono.com.br
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: [ PGP not available, raw data follows ] > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hi, > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > > <snip> > > > Anyway, regarding certification, I was more thinking that one-to-several of > > the current PG support vendors would develop a curriculum, and then several > > major contributors + core group members would review & approve it. I do > > think we need a foundation (and will have one) but for fundraising only; it's > > important that such a foundation have no authority over the program. > > As a PgSQL Inc. Platinum Partner, I'd choose a PGDG approved > Certification. We have a PostgreSQL curriculum in Turkey; but I'm pretty > aware that an PGDG-approved one would sound better to people; with a > ...err...signed certification from PGDG. > > BTW, I've been thinking of directly fundraising PGDG directly for a while > so I'm glad to hear that we are closer to it. How do we evaluate those classes? Is someone going to be there? We can look at the printed curriculum, but do we know the instructor can answer a reasonable question _not_ on the curriculum? How do we tell a company we will _not_ cerify their course? As you can see, this could get messy. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Diogo Biazus wrote: > >And I do think it's important that we don't end up with 4 competing > >certifications each supported by only one vendor. That way lies madness. > > > Here in Brazil we already have 2 certification programs, and the way > that PgSQL is becoming popular around here I expect this number to grow > in a near future. If it's difficult to make a standard now, maybe in some > years it will become nearly impossible. Let me add one more thing --- some companies desire an "official" certification to distinguish them from potential future companies getting into the PostgreSQL support market in their geographical area. I can sympathize with that, particularly because a large company could come into their area and grab much of their business. However, I think part of our future success will be having more and more companies spring up to meet user's needs, and offering global coverage similar to only very large companies. For small companies, I have encouraged them to get one of their developers involved part-time in PostgreSQL development --- with someone on their staff intimately involved in PostgreSQL development, it will be harder for a larger company to come in and offer superior service. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> How do we evaluate those classes? Is someone going to be there? We can
> look at the printed curriculum, but do we know the instructor can answer
> a reasonable question _not_ on the curriculum? How do we tell a company
> we will _not_ cerify their course?
What about certifiying the instructor first? I mean: 'PGDG Certified
Instructors'. If I'm a PGDG Certified instructor, everyone should be sure
that I could answare almost 'any' question about PostgreSQL.
Ok, let's see the point: We are running an open-source product, that has
no company with it. I'd prefer a class that will be certified by a company
or Development Group. For example, there are a lot of Linux Classes in
here; but when I feel that I need to take a certificate, I'd prefer Red
Hat's exams. So, there may be a lot of PostgreSQL classes everywhere --but
I'm pretty sure that people will choose a (PGDG) certified class.
All you need to say is 'PGDG Certifies XX Company's Courses'; you do not
need to announce the opposite.
Regards,
--
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim@gunduz.org devrim.gunduz@linux.org.tr
http://www.tdmsoft.com
http://www.gunduz.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/nWIEtl86P3SPfQ4RAoHzAKCkqfRNYM7vRNx7+R7hHiXB7P4jigCfdnt3
yeAiTbOJ4GdCrSDe0LIJQ7A=
=+E3H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi guys,
I've been watching this thread for the last little while and I'd like to contribute a little of my own thoughts. In the province of Ontario if you want to create courseware under the "Private Vocational School Act", that's your typical IT school folks, you need to describe the conduct of each class down to a minute by minute description. The course is vetted and approved by the government's own education professionals who may or may not know anything about postgres but they sure as hell know the business of education and can recognize whether or not somebody is competent and knows enough to be trusted and to receive government approval, which by the way takes the form of money, lots of it i.e. in the form of student loan funding for the educational institution to take that course.
If the postgres community wants certification then here's one way I believe it could be done:
1. write a text book / develop courseware
2. use the book in a local college environment
3. after running a couple of cycles of running the course then make a formal pitch at the local govt responsible for funding of educational institutions
4. run another couple of cycles of the course now in its sanctioned format (you are by the way further refining the text book)
5. now create a corporate (non profit maybe) structure that takes over and takes the necesary steps to get it into the prometric testing infra-structure (or comptia.. whatever)
6. offer the text book as the reference for certification.
If the core development group is willing to give its blessing to the force behind this courseware then it's just a matter of going through the steps and not making enemies as you go through the motions. I know of people who have already done most of these steps within their own specialization.
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
I've been watching this thread for the last little while and I'd like to contribute a little of my own thoughts. In the province of Ontario if you want to create courseware under the "Private Vocational School Act", that's your typical IT school folks, you need to describe the conduct of each class down to a minute by minute description. The course is vetted and approved by the government's own education professionals who may or may not know anything about postgres but they sure as hell know the business of education and can recognize whether or not somebody is competent and knows enough to be trusted and to receive government approval, which by the way takes the form of money, lots of it i.e. in the form of student loan funding for the educational institution to take that course.
If the postgres community wants certification then here's one way I believe it could be done:
1. write a text book / develop courseware
2. use the book in a local college environment
3. after running a couple of cycles of running the course then make a formal pitch at the local govt responsible for funding of educational institutions
4. run another couple of cycles of the course now in its sanctioned format (you are by the way further refining the text book)
5. now create a corporate (non profit maybe) structure that takes over and takes the necesary steps to get it into the prometric testing infra-structure (or comptia.. whatever)
6. offer the text book as the reference for certification.
If the core development group is willing to give its blessing to the force behind this courseware then it's just a matter of going through the steps and not making enemies as you go through the motions. I know of people who have already done most of these steps within their own specialization.
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:How do we evaluate those classes? Is someone going to be there? We can look at the printed curriculum, but do we know the instructor can answer a reasonable question _not_ on the curriculum? How do we tell a company we will _not_ cerify their course?What about certifiying the instructor first? I mean: 'PGDG Certified Instructors'. If I'm a PGDG Certified instructor, everyone should be sure that I could answare almost 'any' question about PostgreSQL. Ok, let's see the point: We are running an open-source product, that has no company with it. I'd prefer a class that will be certified by a company or Development Group. For example, there are a lot of Linux Classes in here; but when I feel that I need to take a certificate, I'd prefer Red Hat's exams. So, there may be a lot of PostgreSQL classes everywhere --but I'm pretty sure that people will choose a (PGDG) certified class. All you need to say is 'PGDG Certifies XX Company's Courses'; you do not need to announce the opposite.
>What about certifiying the instructor first? I mean: 'PGDG Certified >Instructors'. If I'm a PGDG Certified instructor, everyone should be sure >that I could answare almost 'any' question about PostgreSQL. > > > I don't think that is a good first run. For example, I am a hell of a PostgreSQL tuner. I can get into a database and make analysis of problems that can be solved by different processes, schema changes, postgresql.conf changes etc... I know only the basics of pl/pgSQL. Enough to write a function/trigger when relevant. Of course some of my other programmers are quite adept and pl/pgSQL but they aren't as adept with the actual DBA type stuff. There is no "one hat". That is why the MCSE is crap because it assumes that once reached you are a "one hat" answer. Back when I was in MS hell, and would take classes on things like Exchange. The certified "Instructor" never knew almost "any" question. They were always very strong in one or two areas. To me it makes more sense to have individual certifications that encompass small ranges of talents. Similar to the Comp Tia A+, where there is A+ networks, A+ Windows, A+ Linux etc.... We could have: PGDG Administrator PGDG Developer C/C++ PGDG Developer Java PGDG Developer .Net PGDG SQL specialist I am just blowing wind at this point to provide examples. Sincerely, Joshua Drake >Ok, let's see the point: We are running an open-source product, that has >no company with it. I'd prefer a class that will be certified by a company >or Development Group. For example, there are a lot of Linux Classes in >here; but when I feel that I need to take a certificate, I'd prefer Red >Hat's exams. So, there may be a lot of PostgreSQL classes everywhere --but >I'm pretty sure that people will choose a (PGDG) certified class. > >All you need to say is 'PGDG Certifies XX Company's Courses'; you do not >need to announce the opposite. > >Regards, > -- >Devrim GUNDUZ >devrim@gunduz.org devrim.gunduz@linux.org.tr > http://www.tdmsoft.com > http://www.gunduz.org > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) > >iD8DBQE/nWIEtl86P3SPfQ4RAoHzAKCkqfRNYM7vRNx7+R7hHiXB7P4jigCfdnt3 >yeAiTbOJ4GdCrSDe0LIJQ7A= >=+E3H >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
Bruce Momjian writes: > How do we evaluate those classes? Is someone going to be there? We can > look at the printed curriculum, but do we know the instructor can answer > a reasonable question _not_ on the curriculum? How do we tell a company > we will _not_ cerify their course? > > As you can see, this could get messy. People are providing commercial support without PGDG approval, people are repackaging PostgreSQL without PGDG approval, people are writing books without PGDG approval, people are offering training classes without PGDG approval -- all of these things work well, and they provide for choice, diversity, and competition. I see no need for centralized curricula. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes: [an outline of a tutorial] > - Why avoid NULLs? I'm curious about the answer to that question. Is it a relational database theory problem or PostgreSQL implementation issue? Or do you just talk about inappropriate uses of NULL? Thanks, Jon -- But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. -- Joshua 24:15 (NIV)
Hi to all
I have to disagree.
You cannot just divide PostgreSQL into various sections.
People tend to think that tuning is nothing more than setting some
server side parameter which not true at all. Also, knowing something
about writing C/C++ applications with PostgreSQL does not mean that this
person will be able to write good software if he doesn't know about
other aspects of the system.
PostgreSQL is a powerful system but it is still small enough to
understand it and to be a DBA as well as a tuner or a C/C++ programmer.
I can understand your approach - it can be used for Oracle or let's say
SAP but not for PostgreSQL.
If somebody wants to certify other people he has to know more about the
system and there needs to be at least one expert who has enough
experience to do the job.
Some people have asked for certification in the past but meanwhile I
think that preparing a certification guide and all that stuff is not
worth the effort.
Best regards,
Hans
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> What about certifiying the instructor first? I mean: 'PGDG Certified
>> Instructors'. If I'm a PGDG Certified instructor, everyone should be
>> sure that I could answare almost 'any' question about PostgreSQL.
>>
>>
>>
> I don't think that is a good first run. For example, I am a hell of a
> PostgreSQL
> tuner. I can get into a database and make analysis of problems that can
> be solved by different processes, schema changes, postgresql.conf changes
> etc...
>
> I know only the basics of pl/pgSQL. Enough to write a function/trigger when
> relevant.
>
> Of course some of my other programmers are quite adept and pl/pgSQL but
> they aren't as adept with the actual DBA type stuff.
>
> There is no "one hat". That is why the MCSE is crap because it assumes that
> once reached you are a "one hat" answer.
> Back when I was in MS hell, and would take classes on things like
> Exchange. The
> certified "Instructor" never knew almost "any" question. They were always
> very strong in one or two areas.
>
> To me it makes more sense to have individual certifications that encompass
> small ranges of talents. Similar to the Comp Tia A+, where there is A+
> networks, A+ Windows,
> A+ Linux etc....
>
> We could have:
>
> PGDG Administrator
> PGDG Developer C/C++
> PGDG Developer Java
> PGDG Developer .Net
> PGDG SQL specialist
>
> I am just blowing wind at this point to provide examples.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua Drake
>
>
>
>
>> Ok, let's see the point: We are running an open-source product, that
>> has no company with it. I'd prefer a class that will be certified by a
>> company or Development Group. For example, there are a lot of Linux
>> Classes in here; but when I feel that I need to take a certificate,
>> I'd prefer Red Hat's exams. So, there may be a lot of PostgreSQL
>> classes everywhere --but I'm pretty sure that people will choose a
>> (PGDG) certified class.
>>
>> All you need to say is 'PGDG Certifies XX Company's Courses'; you do
>> not need to announce the opposite.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Devrim GUNDUZ
>> devrim@gunduz.org devrim.gunduz@linux.org.tr
>> http://www.tdmsoft.com
>> http://www.gunduz.org
>>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iD8DBQE/nWIEtl86P3SPfQ4RAoHzAKCkqfRNYM7vRNx7+R7hHiXB7P4jigCfdnt3
>> yeAiTbOJ4GdCrSDe0LIJQ7A=
>> =+E3H
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>>
>>
>
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
Jon.Ericson@jpl.nasa.gov (Jon Ericson) writes: > Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes: > [an outline of a tutorial] >> - Why avoid NULLs? > > I'm curious about the answer to that question. Is it a relational > database theory problem or PostgreSQL implementation issue? Or do > you just talk about inappropriate uses of NULL? It somewhat parallels the infamous "GOTO considered harmful" that caused great controversy around the ACM for many years after Dijkstra sent in a letter by that title, and yes, it's an issue of "relational database theory." At one extreme, Chris Date holds to the position that NULLs ought to be forbidden outright. He does make a fairly credible case for it, albeit with the problem that when you forbid NULLs, you have to replace them by making the data model a little more complex. (He recently released a paper on how to do this; there's not much surprise to it; whenever a column "could be NULL," you have to split it off to a separate table so that its omission amounts to not bothering to populate the new table...) The other "major" position is that there should be multiple sorts of 'NULL' values to indicate different forms of missing information. (One problem with NULL is that you can't easily distinguish between "I left that NULL because I didn't know the value" and "That's NULL because that's how we say it's 'empty.'") I fall more into the pragmatic position that "NULL columns have the potential to cause a lot of confusion; use NOT NULL when you can, and be wary when you can't." It's similar to how I feel about normalization; I would consider that you should do as much of that as you can, but it is unlikely that a data model will survive the normal collisions with business requirements and still remain in 6NF. The most entertaining comment I got in chatting with folks afterwards was that one fellow held a "devil's advocate" position on putting everything in 3NF. A coworker of his, fresh out of school, was claiming staunchly that it is NECESSARY to normalize things to at least the point of getting to Third Normal Form. Unfortunately, he couldn't articulate any reasons to do so beyond "My professor told me that it's necessary." I daresay that's _not_ a good enough reason. You need to internalize, at least to _some_ degree, why normalization is valuable in order to successfully argue for it. -- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sap.html "This is very curious ... as if someone was eating the wrong sort of mushrooms when they invented this sort of thing" -- Arthur Norman
Christopher Browne wrote: > Jon.Ericson@jpl.nasa.gov (Jon Ericson) writes: >> Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes: >> [an outline of a tutorial] >>> - Why avoid NULLs? >> >> I'm curious about the answer to that question. Is it a relational >> database theory problem or PostgreSQL implementation issue? Or do >> you just talk about inappropriate uses of NULL? > > It somewhat parallels the infamous "GOTO considered harmful" that > caused great controversy around the ACM for many years after Dijkstra > sent in a letter by that title, and yes, it's an issue of "relational > database theory." And I still think avoiding GOTO alltogether is a good thing. Instead the language is supposed to support COMEFROM, which you put at the place where you want to continue when the program had reached some other place. You can think of it much like an exception handler, the exception being that the program survived to a point where you not really expected it to get to. Fortunately PostgreSQL has this even down on the per row level in form of the BEFORE TRIGGER returning NULL and INSTEAD rewrite rules. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes: > At one extreme, Chris Date holds to the position that NULLs ought to > be forbidden outright. He does make a fairly credible case for it, > albeit with the problem that when you forbid NULLs, you have to > replace them by making the data model a little more complex. (He > recently released a paper on how to do this; there's not much > surprise to it; whenever a column "could be NULL," you have to split > it off to a separate table so that its omission amounts to not > bothering to populate the new table...) > > The other "major" position is that there should be multiple sorts of > 'NULL' values to indicate different forms of missing information. > (One problem with NULL is that you can't easily distinguish between > "I left that NULL because I didn't know the value" and "That's NULL > because that's how we say it's 'empty.'") > > I fall more into the pragmatic position that "NULL columns have the > potential to cause a lot of confusion; use NOT NULL when you can, > and be wary when you can't." Interesting. The bullet caught my eye because I am currently working with a table that has, in my opinion, poorly thought out NOT NULL constraints. When I do the initial insert I have to use 0 to mean both "I don't know the value yet" and "this is how we say empty"! It occurs to me that adding a cross-reference table would not only let me avoid NULL, but also solve a couple of other problems as well. Thanks, Jon -- But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD. -- Joshua 24:15 (NIV)
In the last exciting episode, Jon.Ericson@jpl.nasa.gov (Jon Ericson) wrote: > Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> writes: >> At one extreme, Chris Date holds to the position that NULLs ought to >> be forbidden outright. He does make a fairly credible case for it, >> albeit with the problem that when you forbid NULLs, you have to >> replace them by making the data model a little more complex. (He >> recently released a paper on how to do this; there's not much >> surprise to it; whenever a column "could be NULL," you have to split >> it off to a separate table so that its omission amounts to not >> bothering to populate the new table...) >> >> The other "major" position is that there should be multiple sorts of >> 'NULL' values to indicate different forms of missing information. >> (One problem with NULL is that you can't easily distinguish between >> "I left that NULL because I didn't know the value" and "That's NULL >> because that's how we say it's 'empty.'") >> >> I fall more into the pragmatic position that "NULL columns have the >> potential to cause a lot of confusion; use NOT NULL when you can, >> and be wary when you can't." > > Interesting. The bullet caught my eye because I am currently working > with a table that has, in my opinion, poorly thought out NOT NULL > constraints. When I do the initial insert I have to use 0 to mean > both "I don't know the value yet" and "this is how we say empty"! It > occurs to me that adding a cross-reference table would not only let me > avoid NULL, but also solve a couple of other problems as well. Actually, I misattributed that. The paper on dealing with 'missing information' without using NULLs is by Hugh Darwen. (He and Date do a lot of work together, so it's honest confusion :-).) <http://www.hughdarwen.freeola.com/TheThirdManifesto.web/Missing-info-without-nulls.pdf> It's worth a read. I am not sure it TRULY gets around the problems with NULLs, but there certainly are some ideas there worth looking at. Food for thought, if not a perfect prescription for a permanent doctrine on the matter. The problem I see with the "make another table" approach is that you wind up with another table for everyone to manage. More data to join; more tables to add data to; none of that comes for free, even if it is cheap, performance-wise. -- output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "cbbrowne.com") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/x.html Did you hear about the Buddhist who refused his dentist's novocaine during root canal work? He wanted to transcend dental medication.