Thread: Increased company involvement

Increased company involvement

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
I am very excited to see companies involved in PostgreSQL development.
It gives us funding for developers and features that is new for us.  We
had Fujitsu funding some features for 8.0 and that really helped us.

However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
I don't see happening with the current companies involved.  Companies
are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
by other companies.  The big issue is communication.  Because the
PostgreSQL code base is common for most of the companies involved, there
has to be coordination in what they are working on and their approaches.

If that doesn't happen, two companies will work on the same feature, and
only one can be added, or a complex process of merging the two patches
into one patch has to happen --- again duplicated effort.  I am willing
to do the coordination, or even better, have the companies involved
publicly post their efforts so all the other companies can know what
is happening.  I realize this is hard for companies because their
efforts are in some ways part of their profitability.  Does
profitability require duplication of effort and code collisions?  I am
not sure, but if it does, we are in trouble.  I am not sure the
community has the resources to resolve that many collisions.

Second, some developers are being hired from the community to work on
closed-source additions to PostgreSQL.  That is fine and great, but one
way to kill PostgreSQL is to hire away its developers.  If a commercial
company wanted to hurt us, that is certainly one way they might do it.
Anyway, it is a concern I have.  I am hoping community members hired to
do closed-source additions can at least spend some of their time on
community work.

And finally, we have a few companies working on features that they
eventually want merged back into the PostgreSQL codebase.  That is a
very tricky process and usually goes badly unless the company seeks
community involvement from the start, including user interface,
implementation, and coding standards.

I hate to be discouraging here, but I am trying to communicate what we
have learned over the past few years to help companies be effective in
working with open source communities.  I am available to talk to any
company that wants further details.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://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

Re: Increased company involvement

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
> However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
> I don't see happening with the current companies involved.  Companies
> are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
> by other companies.

That is bound to happen no matter what. Look at plJava and plJ. Some
people just feel that their way is better. Some people just don't get
along etc...

That is why we have 80 Linux distributions and a dozen FreeBSD
distributions (can I include MacOSX?).

 >  The big issue is communication.  Because the
> PostgreSQL code base is common for most of the companies involved, there
> has to be coordination in what they are working on and their approaches.

I can see this as an issue but sometimes that community is a hampering
course as well. I recognize the community goals and respect them but in
some things the community can move really slow. From what I can tell
some of this is caused by the no new features rules etc...

In business moving slow can mean death to a project.

Which is why (hate to beat a dead horse) many OSS projects have moved
to 6 month release cycles.

> is happening.  I realize this is hard for companies because their
> efforts are in some ways part of their profitability.

That is true, there are sometimes strategic reasons to not annouce a
project.

> profitability require duplication of effort and code collisions?  I am
> not sure, but if it does, we are in trouble.  I am not sure the
> community has the resources to resolve that many collisions.

Which is why you are starting to see forks such as Bizgres but it is
also why you are seeing forks go away (Mammoth PostgreSQL).

> Second, some developers are being hired from the community to work on
> closed-source additions to PostgreSQL.  That is fine and great, but one
> way to kill PostgreSQL is to hire away its developers.  If a commercial
> company wanted to hurt us, that is certainly one way they might do it.
> Anyway, it is a concern I have.  I am hoping community members hired to
> do closed-source additions can at least spend some of their time on
> community work.

I would think that most of the developers would stipulate that in order
to take the position??? I know Command Prompt would always make sure
that the developer could work on the community stuff.

> And finally, we have a few companies working on features that they
> eventually want merged back into the PostgreSQL codebase.  That is a
> very tricky process and usually goes badly unless the company seeks
> community involvement from the start, including user interface,
> implementation, and coding standards.

I concur with this. We ran into this with plPerl.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc.

--
Your PostgreSQL solutions provider, Command Prompt, Inc.
24x7 support - 1.800.492.2240, programming, and consulting
Home of PostgreSQL Replicator, plPHP, plPerlNG and pgPHPToolkit
http://www.commandprompt.com / http://www.postgresql.org

Re: Increased company involvement

From
Christopher Kings-Lynne
Date:
> And finally, we have a few companies working on features that they
> eventually want merged back into the PostgreSQL codebase.  That is a
> very tricky process and usually goes badly unless the company seeks
> community involvement from the start, including user interface,
> implementation, and coding standards.

You might be interested to know that someone is evening wanting to
sponsor some phpPgAdmin development.

Chris

Re: Increased company involvement

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
> > I don't see happening with the current companies involved.  Companies
> > are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
> > by other companies.
>
> That is bound to happen no matter what. Look at plJava and plJ. Some
> people just feel that their way is better. Some people just don't get
> along etc...
>
> That is why we have 80 Linux distributions and a dozen FreeBSD
> distributions (can I include MacOSX?).

Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized?  In fact,
it might have be happening already.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://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

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
>
> Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
> because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized?  In fact,
> it might have be happening already.

Well that depends... If the companies are writing for Pervasive
PostgreSQL I don't think they would have a problem with that ;).

And I do agree with you Bruce, it is happening already -- I don't think
there is any question in that.


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


>


--
Your PostgreSQL solutions provider, Command Prompt, Inc.
24x7 support - 1.800.492.2240, programming, and consulting
Home of PostgreSQL Replicator, plPHP, plPerlNG and pgPHPToolkit
http://www.commandprompt.com / http://www.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> >
> > Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
> > because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized?  In fact,
> > it might have be happening already.
>
> Well that depends... If the companies are writing for Pervasive
> PostgreSQL I don't think they would have a problem with that ;).
>
> And I do agree with you Bruce, it is happening already -- I don't think
> there is any question in that.

Oh, well good I am not seeing phantoms.  I have had time to focus on
where we are for the past few days and I am worried about what I see. It
can be great, or it can be a mess, for both us and the companies
involved, and I want to work to make it the former.

The fact is, we now have more and more companies relying on us to be a
success, and that is an added responsibility for us.  We can make it
work, but just hoping for it isn't enough --- we have to focus on the
issues early and plan for that success.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://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

Re: Increased company involvement

From
Thomas Hallgren
Date:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
>> I don't see happening with the current companies involved.  Companies
>> are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
>> by other companies.
>
>
> That is bound to happen no matter what. Look at plJava and plJ. Some
> people just feel that their way is better. Some people just don't get
> along etc...
>
Actually, I think that PL/Java versus PL/J is a good example of where
some coordination would have helped a lot.

The short story:
I was between jobs in December 2003 through February the following year.
A lot of work on PL/Java was made during that time. I had no clue that
there was another active project with similar objectives until after my
first fully functional submission to gborg. Had I known, the outcome
would have been different. Today there are ongoing and very active
efforts to collaborate.

The longer story (if anyone is interested):
Before I started PL/Java I informed the community of my intentions (see
hackers thread "pljava revisited"
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-12/msg00310.php ). I
got a lot of feedback and good advice such as using C instead of C++,
hosting the project at gborg, etc. but nobody told me back then that
there was an active PL/J project. I found traces of that project on
sourceforge but it seemed to have been dead for over a year. At that
time there was no redirect from sourceforge.

Jan Wieck started the thread "PL/Java issues"
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-12/msg00819.php in
which I made 2 major posts. Nothing in that thread indicated that there
was an ongoing project and I got no reply to my posts. On January the
7th, I made my first submission to gborg.

When I, in mid February, realized that the PL/J project was indeed alive
and active, I wrote the "PL/Java - next step?"
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-02/msg00713.php where
I outlined possible futures for PL/Java and PL/J. The outcome of that
was that PL/J  (Dave Cramer and Laszlo Hornyak) and I had an IRC meeting
where we agreed on some limited collaboration (see "Minutes from Pl/Java
-next step IRC"
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg00171.php ).

 From that point and until a month or so ago, the active collaboration
between the projects could have been better. Some things did happen
though. Laszlo asked me to publish some PL/Java interfaces in a public
maven repository which I did and we had some discussions. I made an
attempt to have a major sponsor step in and take the lead in a project
aiming to provide a flexible solution where a choice of approach could
be made but the sponsor understandably wanted to wait and see.

Today, we (the PL/Java and PL/J project members) make common efforts to
factor out client tools that indeed can be common to a separate project.
We are also discussing how to make the PostgreSQL user experience as
similar as possible and thus allowing use of PL/Java or PL/J without
changing anything but configuration.

Kind regards,
Thomas Hallgren


Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Robert Treat
Date:
On Thursday 28 April 2005 01:48, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Do companies want to write for Blue Hat PostgreSQL and Suza PostgreSQL
> > because that might be what happens if we don't stay organized?  In fact,
> > it might have be happening already.
>
> Well that depends... If the companies are writing for Pervasive
> PostgreSQL I don't think they would have a problem with that ;).
>
> And I do agree with you Bruce, it is happening already -- I don't think
> there is any question in that.
>

ISTM the allure of differentiation and branding is going to be too strong for
us to prevent such things.  An easy way to differentiate is to add some
proprietary/unique extension to the main code and then package that up. If
you have to have all your extensions be put into the community version then
lose this advantage over your comptetitors. (Mammoth PostgreSQL/Replicator is
an example of this)  The same holds true for branding.... if your Pervasive
you want to sell Pervasive Postgres rather than PostgreSQL because you get to
push your name out there, and get people thinking about your company whenever
they talk about the database.

I think our goal is to encorage companies to push these changes into the core
as much as possible, pointing out things like the advantages community
support brings like ongoing maintainance,  support in add-on tools like
pgadmin or phppgadmin, and eliminating the chance that someone else will
submit a similar solution that gets accepted to the community code there by
deprecating the work they have already done.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Re: Increased company involvement

From
"Andy Astor"
Date:
> > However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu
that
> > I don't see happening with the current companies involved.
Companies
> > are already duplicating work that is also done by community members
or
> > by other companies.
>
> That is bound to happen no matter what. Look at plJava and plJ. Some
> people just feel that their way is better. Some people just don't get
> along etc...
>
> That is why we have 80 Linux distributions and a dozen FreeBSD
> distributions (can I include MacOSX?).

True enough. And coordination, just like other outward-facing
activities, is often inconvenient and easy to forget. But it's
important. I've just left the Board of Directors of the Web Services
Interoperability organization (WS-I). Coordinating the standards
activities of IBM, MS, Sun, Oracle, BEA, Fujitsu, SAP, and 130 others
takes enormous time and care, but it's the only way coop-etors can
function.

And having said that, aggressive businesspeople will move too quickly at
times, or will hide their activities for business reasons. It's a mostly
forgivable sin, IMO.

> > Second, some developers are being hired from the community to work
on
> > closed-source additions to PostgreSQL.  That is fine and great, but
one
> > way to kill PostgreSQL is to hire away its developers.  If a
commercial
> > company wanted to hurt us, that is certainly one way they might do
it.
> > Anyway, it is a concern I have.  I am hoping community members hired
to
> > do closed-source additions can at least spend some of their time on
> > community work.
>
> I would think that most of the developers would stipulate that in
order
> to take the position??? I know Command Prompt would always make sure
> that the developer could work on the community stuff.

The same is true for EnterpriseDB.

> > And finally, we have a few companies working on features that they
> > eventually want merged back into the PostgreSQL codebase.  That is a
> > very tricky process and usually goes badly unless the company seeks
> > community involvement from the start, including user interface,
> > implementation, and coding standards.
>
> I concur with this. We ran into this with plPerl.

The only way to successfully extend PostgreSQL commercially is to
coordinate with the community.

    -- Andy




Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Hannu Krosing
Date:
On K, 2005-04-27 at 22:21 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
> > I don't see happening with the current companies involved.  Companies
> > are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
> > by other companies.
>
> That is why we have 80 Linux distributions and a dozen FreeBSD
> distributions (can I include MacOSX?).

I guess more aprropriate comparison would be to distibution specific
linux kernels, i.e. RedHat linux kernel vs. suse linux kernel v.s.
"vanilla" or "real" :) linux kernel.

>  >  The big issue is communication.  Because the
> > PostgreSQL code base is common for most of the companies involved, there
> > has to be coordination in what they are working on and their approaches.
>
> I can see this as an issue but sometimes that community is a hampering
> course as well. I recognize the community goals and respect them but in
> some things the community can move really slow. From what I can tell
> some of this is caused by the no new features rules etc...
>
> In business moving slow can mean death to a project.
>
> Which is why (hate to beat a dead horse) many OSS projects have moved
> to 6 month release cycles.

Well, it is a two-sided thing. On one hand, businesses usually need new
features "yesterday", but on the other hand, business would loose most
of the benefit of getting the feature fast, if it is not included in the
main branch along the road, preferrably in the next official release,
because said business would be dependent of the implementor of his
specific feature for integrating _all_ other new and desirable fetures
of next releas in their specific version of postgres.

> > is happening.  I realize this is hard for companies because their
> > efforts are in some ways part of their profitability.
>
> That is true, there are sometimes strategic reasons to not annouce a
> project.

I can see no strategic advantages for sponsors in not announcing the
project. There may be some small tactical wins for the actual
implementors, but not even tactical wins the sponsors.

There may be some strategic/tactical reasons for sponsors to announce
who they (the sponsors) are, but I can't see any reason not to announce
the project or not to encourage/ask/demand the implementor to do so.

> > profitability require duplication of effort and code collisions?  I am
> > not sure, but if it does, we are in trouble.  I am not sure the
> > community has the resources to resolve that many collisions.
>
> Which is why you are starting to see forks such as Bizgres but it is
> also why you are seeing forks go away (Mammoth PostgreSQL).

At first glance at least, BizGres looks like a community oriented
project and I hope that BizGres will be a testbed/early implementation
of some DataWarehouse features, which will be integrated back to
postgres at first possibility.

But I too expected the discussion to take place on pgsql-hackers, not
some half-hidden mailinglist on pgfoundry. Or at least an announcement
of that mailinglist to be made on pgsql-hachers.

OTOH, there are some things (2PC, recursive queries, ...) which are
discussed on psql-hacker and still are lingering somewhere and are for
various reasons (one of them may be lack of time/money/sponsor-pressure
for the developer) not in the postgres proper yet.

OTOOH, I see that a growing number of companies who might think of
sponsoring PG development are interested in BI/DW and OLAP features in
addition to plain OLTP enchancements.

--
Hannu Krosing <>


Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Josh Berkus
Date:
Hannu,

> But I too expected the discussion to take place on pgsql-hackers, not
> some half-hidden mailinglist on pgfoundry. Or at least an announcement
> of that mailinglist to be made on pgsql-hachers.

Yeah, we should announce the mailing list.  Actually, I did direct e-mail a
bunch of people (including you) about it and invite them to the mailing list.
So: http://pgfoundry.org/mail/?group_id=1000107

For discussing potential features, though, I'm personally reluctant at this
point to discuss major features until I and my collaborators (example,
newsysviews) have a concrete proposal together.   It's far too easy to get
sidetracked into a discussion of minutia and politics on -hackers; by
generating a complete draft spec (at least) on a small mailing list, it's a
lot easier to focus on specific goals and schedules, and discussions on
hackers around detailed proposals tend to be a lot more focused.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Robert Treat wrote:
> ISTM the allure of differentiation and branding is going to be too strong for
> us to prevent such things.  An easy way to differentiate is to add some
> proprietary/unique extension to the main code and then package that up. If
> you have to have all your extensions be put into the community version then
> lose this advantage over your comptetitors. (Mammoth PostgreSQL/Replicator is
> an example of this)  The same holds true for branding.... if your Pervasive
> you want to sell Pervasive Postgres rather than PostgreSQL because you get to
> push your name out there, and get people thinking about your company whenever
> they talk about the database.
>
> I think our goal is to encorage companies to push these changes into the core
> as much as possible, pointing out things like the advantages community
> support brings like ongoing maintainance,  support in add-on tools like
> pgadmin or phppgadmin, and eliminating the chance that someone else will
> submit a similar solution that gets accepted to the community code there by
> deprecating the work they have already done.

I remember something the president of Great Bridge told me, he said,
"Great Bridge needs PostgreSQL.  If Great Bridge dies, PostgreSQL goes
on (as it did), but if PostgreSQL dies, Great Bridge is dead too".

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://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

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Andrew Dunstan
Date:
I've deliberately let the dust settle slightly on this.

One thing that might help is a more open sponsorship "clearing house".
Example (not meant as a bid, but just to illustrate): the JDBC driver
needs a scanner overhaul - it breaks on dollar quoting and a bunch of
other stuff. I could do that work (as could others, of course) but I
don't have time, unless someone buys some of my professional time.
Someone might want to do just that, but how would they find me?

Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.

cheers

andrew


Bruce Momjian wrote:

>I am very excited to see companies involved in PostgreSQL development.
>It gives us funding for developers and features that is new for us.  We
>had Fujitsu funding some features for 8.0 and that really helped us.
>
>However, there was a lot of coordination that happened with Fujitsu that
>I don't see happening with the current companies involved.  Companies
>are already duplicating work that is also done by community members or
>by other companies.  The big issue is communication.  Because the
>PostgreSQL code base is common for most of the companies involved, there
>has to be coordination in what they are working on and their approaches.
>
>If that doesn't happen, two companies will work on the same feature, and
>only one can be added, or a complex process of merging the two patches
>into one patch has to happen --- again duplicated effort.  I am willing
>to do the coordination, or even better, have the companies involved
>publicly post their efforts so all the other companies can know what
>is happening.  I realize this is hard for companies because their
>efforts are in some ways part of their profitability.  Does
>profitability require duplication of effort and code collisions?  I am
>not sure, but if it does, we are in trouble.  I am not sure the
>community has the resources to resolve that many collisions.
>
>Second, some developers are being hired from the community to work on
>closed-source additions to PostgreSQL.  That is fine and great, but one
>way to kill PostgreSQL is to hire away its developers.  If a commercial
>company wanted to hurt us, that is certainly one way they might do it.
>Anyway, it is a concern I have.  I am hoping community members hired to
>do closed-source additions can at least spend some of their time on
>community work.
>
>And finally, we have a few companies working on features that they
>eventually want merged back into the PostgreSQL codebase.  That is a
>very tricky process and usually goes badly unless the company seeks
>community involvement from the start, including user interface,
>implementation, and coding standards.
>
>I hate to be discouraging here, but I am trying to communicate what we
>have learned over the past few years to help companies be effective in
>working with open source communities.  I am available to talk to any
>company that wants further details.
>
>
>

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> I've deliberately let the dust settle slightly on this.
>
> One thing that might help is a more open sponsorship "clearing house".
> Example (not meant as a bid, but just to illustrate): the JDBC driver
> needs a scanner overhaul - it breaks on dollar quoting and a bunch of
> other stuff. I could do that work (as could others, of course) but I
> don't have time, unless someone buys some of my professional time.
> Someone might want to do just that, but how would they find me?
>
> Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
> whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.

Let me add that we really do want these companies to succeed.

For me, it is all a matter of meeting the company's expectations.  If a
company wants to add a closed-source feature to PostgreSQL, that's fine,
but if they work on a features and eventually want it integrated into
the main code, I don't want that to fail and have them be disappointed.
The same goes for duplicated effort --- if they don't wnat it to happen,
I want to help them prevent it.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://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

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Tom Lane
Date:
Andrew Dunstan <> writes:
> Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
> whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.

Yeah.  Bruce and I were worrying about this on the phone today.
If a company is doing some work with the intent that it's a proprietary
extension they can sell, no problem --- the BSD license is specifically
intended to let them do that.  What's bothering us is the thought that
people are off in corners developing code that they think they are going
to contribute back into the community code base "after it's done".  Past
history shows that the odds of getting such things accepted into the PG
community code base are *very* bad if you didn't communicate with the
community from the start of your development process.

We'd like to avoid such unpleasant surprises, but how to get the word
out?

            regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Kris Jurka
Date:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:

> One thing that might help is a more open sponsorship "clearing house".
> Example (not meant as a bid, but just to illustrate): the JDBC driver
> needs a scanner overhaul - it breaks on dollar quoting and a bunch of
> other stuff. I could do that work (as could others, of course) but I
> don't have time, unless someone buys some of my professional time.
> Someone might want to do just that, but how would they find me?

I don't think this is a big issue.  I don't know of any companies who were
desperate for a feature and willing to throw money at the problem who
couldn't find a developer to take them up on it.  Right now this seems to
be a kind of behind the scenes operation that relies heavily on knowing
the right people, but I think most of our sponsor contact points are able
to point sponsors to the right people.  Could this process be more open?
Depends on how the sponsor wants to handle it, they probably don't just
want to throw the task out there and see who comes calling, they want an
assurance from someone they trust that the chosen developer is capable.

One thing that definitely would be nice would be to be able to combine
funds from various sponsors for various features.  Alone a company can't
spring for it, but by pooling resources it could get done.  This is a lot
tougher to coordinate and unless there is a complete spec in place
different sponsors will pull in different directions.  Other bounty type
schemes don't seem to produce results, largely from a lack of cash.
(Here's $500 for two weeks of work).

Anyone care to shed some light on how it works now?

Kris Jurka

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
> We'd like to avoid such unpleasant surprises, but how to get the word
> out?

More prominent placement of how to contribute would probably help. The
PGF could help with this as well once it is done. Right now it is ether
on how to contribute unless you know where to look.

Right now on the front page when we ask for support we are asking for
people to donate money. We don't need money. We need people. The support
link goes to bandwidth but a great deal of the project is hosted over
many, many servers with many providers. That really isn't as much of an
issue anymore. At least IMHO.

If it were I there would be a big link in bright text (not literally)
that says, "How to contribute" on the front page of the website. This
would go to a page that talks about the different ways to contribute
with contacts for each topic.

Who is head of Documentation?

Who can I talk to about submitting patches?
    To libpq
    To ECPG
    To JDBC
       etc....

What is the CVS policy?

Anyway... just some thoughts.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc.


Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
>
>
> If money's not an issue anymore, can we get a bigger box to host
> pgfoundry on then? :)

It's been done and is in the process of being brought up at a new colo
facility. There is also a backup box being built for failover purposes ;)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc.





Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
>
> Any ETA? I don't mean to harp, but it looks really bad when someone new
> to postgresql comes to investigate something and the site is just
> crawling.

Well the backup should come up in a couple of weeks. I know that the new
pgFoundry is being worked on right now. Josh would have a better idea.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Kris Jurka
Date:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Nicolai Petri (lists) wrote:

> We also use PostgreSQL as our primary db so it would be more than likely
> that we would donate money for something similar with postgresql if
> either :
>   a) we can direct the money at one or more specific tasks
>   or
>   b) the tasks founded will be related to core postgresql features e.g.
>      generel performance or other benefits that fits all.
>

The problem is organization.  Who decides who gets what money?  What about
features that are paid for and worked on and not accepted into the
community codebase?  This was something I hoped the PostgreSQL Foundation
http://thepostgresqlfoundation.org/ would step in and do, but we seem much
more focused on advocacy efforts rather than developemnt ones.

Kris Jurka

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <> writes:
> > Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
> > whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.
>
> Yeah.  Bruce and I were worrying about this on the phone today.
> If a company is doing some work with the intent that it's a proprietary
> extension they can sell, no problem --- the BSD license is specifically
> intended to let them do that.  What's bothering us is the thought that
> people are off in corners developing code that they think they are going
> to contribute back into the community code base "after it's done".  Past
> history shows that the odds of getting such things accepted into the PG
> community code base are *very* bad if you didn't communicate with the
> community from the start of your development process.
>
> We'd like to avoid such unpleasant surprises, but how to get the word
> out?

Well, I received a private email with most of the companies involved as
CC's and many of them have made comments on the issue, so I think we can
say they saw the postings on this topic.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://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

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Bruce Momjian
Date:
Kris Jurka wrote:
> One thing that definitely would be nice would be to be able to combine
> funds from various sponsors for various features.  Alone a company can't
> spring for it, but by pooling resources it could get done.  This is a lot
> tougher to coordinate and unless there is a complete spec in place
> different sponsors will pull in different directions.  Other bounty type
> schemes don't seem to produce results, largely from a lack of cash.
> (Here's $500 for two weeks of work).
>
> Anyone care to shed some light on how it works now?

I can tell you how I have done it.  If a company contacts me to add a
feature, I find the person I think is most qualified, check their
availability, and then get them in touch with the donor.  In some cases,
I coordinate the work, and actually funnel the money and guarantee that
the developer will be paid.  I can do that because I often have an
existing relationship with the funding company and the developer.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://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

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Christopher Browne
Date:
Quoth  ("Joshua D. Drake"):
>> If money's not an issue anymore, can we get a bigger box to host
>> pgfoundry on then? :)
>
> It's been done and is in the process of being brought up at a new colo
> facility. There is also a backup box being built for failover purposes
> ;)

I'd like to shift Slony-I there, when it makes sense; it has been
quite unfortunate how both GBorg and PGFoundry have been separately
offering, um, "less stability than I particularly like."

Growing pains are something I understand; it's just unfortunate...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/finances.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #177.  "If a scientist with a beautiful and
unmarried  daughter  refuses to  work  for me,  I  will  not hold  her
hostage. Instead, I  will offer to pay for her  future wedding and her
children's college tuition." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Christopher Browne
Date:
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away,  (Kris Jurka) wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Nicolai Petri (lists) wrote:
>
>> We also use PostgreSQL as our primary db so it would be more than likely
>> that we would donate money for something similar with postgresql if
>> either :
>>   a) we can direct the money at one or more specific tasks
>>   or
>>   b) the tasks founded will be related to core postgresql features e.g.
>>      generel performance or other benefits that fits all.
>
> The problem is organization.  Who decides who gets what money?  What
> about features that are paid for and worked on and not accepted into
> the community codebase?  This was something I hoped the PostgreSQL
> Foundation http://thepostgresqlfoundation.org/ would step in and do,
> but we seem much more focused on advocacy efforts rather than
> developemnt ones.

If you have a proposal, by all means, bring it up.

I think you have an excellent thought, and that PGF would be an
excellent place to talk about assembling that "organization."

I'm not certain it is necessarily something that PGF should itself do;
there may be conflicts of interest here and there on the matter.  (I
think it's not something where details for "each deal" should come to
the members at large; a committee or other subset would seem more
appropriate.)

Bring it up as new business.  It may be appropriate for a committee to
be tasked with taking care of organizing this.  Or people may be able
to finger an exact person that is particularly appropriate to
coordinate it.

It sounds as though Bruce has been doing this somewhat already; it
could be sensible for a committee to form to review 'applications,'
filtering out duds, passing only the "good ones" on to Bruce so that,
from there, there's not a lot of bureaucracy to deal with.

Turn some arrangement like this into a motion, and it can surely be
discussed.
--
"cbbrowne","@","gmail.com"
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/x.html
You should talk to the DOCTOR.

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Robert Treat
Date:
On Saturday 30 April 2005 02:02, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > We'd like to avoid such unpleasant surprises, but how to get the word
> > out?
>
> More prominent placement of how to contribute would probably help. The
> PGF could help with this as well once it is done. Right now it is ether
> on how to contribute unless you know where to look.
>
> Right now on the front page when we ask for support we are asking for
> people to donate money. We don't need money. We need people. The support
> link goes to bandwidth but a great deal of the project is hosted over
> many, many servers with many providers. That really isn't as much of an
> issue anymore. At least IMHO.

At the least we could add a link in there with some info on sponsoring
development.

>
> If it were I there would be a big link in bright text (not literally)
> that says, "How to contribute" on the front page of the website. This
> would go to a page that talks about the different ways to contribute
> with contacts for each topic.
>
> Who is head of Documentation?
>
> Who can I talk to about submitting patches?
>     To libpq
>     To ECPG
>     To JDBC
>        etc....
>
> What is the CVS policy?
>
> Anyway... just some thoughts.
>

Some of this sounds like things that should be put together in the devlopers
faq.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
David Fetter
Date:
On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:37:06AM +0200, Nicolai Petri (lists) wrote:
> >Anyone interested in pooling funds for features should take a look at
> >http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/funding.html, which is about a FreeBSD
> >developer who offered to work full-time on developing some specific
> >features should enough people donate. Also worthy of mention is
> >http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/.
> This was really a great idea and we (my company) also supported it because
> we use freebsd as our primary os. We also use PostgreSQL as our primary db
> so it would be more than likely that we would donate money for something
> similar with postgresql if either :
>  a) we can direct the money at one or more specific tasks
>  or
>  b) the tasks founded will be related to core postgresql features e.g.
>     generel performance or other benefits that fits all.
>
> >I think that for certain key features there's probably a lot of
> >people who would fork over between $100 and $1000 towards getting a
> >feature completed.

> Yes - without any promise I would probably be able to raise between
> $1000 and $3000 in a period of the next 3 months. I would definately
> try it and I have multiple customers that have giving their intent
> on something like this.

Great!

> >Improved replication might be a good example. Table
> >partitioning would absolutely be an example. If there was a means for
> >these people to donate money towards work being done on some feature,
> >it's very likely that large chunks of development time could be paid for
> >just from smaller shops, let alone places that can afford to toss $20k
> >towards the development of something.
> I totally agree. In our preference list I would have the following tasks :
> 1)  IOT (Index Ordered Tables)

Is this different from CLUSTER?

> 2)  Table partitioning

That'd be nice.  It may be part of the bizgres effort, which
underscores the point others have made about this being not exactly
easy to find.

> 3)  Better multimaster replication framework

Slony-2 will be one of these.  It depends (I think) on 2PC, which
appears slated for 8.1. :)

> 4)  Extending PostgreSQL's plugin support with additional hooks in the
>      backend e.g. :
>       - for adding new tablestore engines (like mysql can)

To some approximation, DBI-Link
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/dbi-link/
does this.  Any help with this would be greatly appreciated, as it is
quickly approaching the edge of my skillset.

>       - for adding callbacks that get's called on transaction
> success/failure using SPI. (e.g. for housekeeping and cleanup)

Would this be like an ON COMMIT TRIGGER?

> 5)  Adding parameter support for NOTIFY / LISTEN

What's this for, and what cool stuff could one do with it?

Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter  http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100   mobile: +1 415 235 3778

Remember to vote!

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Robert Treat
Date:
On Saturday 30 April 2005 17:40, David Fetter wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 10:37:06AM +0200, Nicolai Petri (lists) wrote:
> > I totally agree. In our preference list I would have the following tasks
> > : 1)  IOT (Index Ordered Tables)
>
> Is this different from CLUSTER?
>

I think what he is looking for is a table that is maintained in CLUSTERed
order... ie. new inserts will be put in the appropriate place mimicing what
happens with indexes.  This has been discussed in the past and has been shot
down before...see archives on pgsql-hackers for past discussions.

> > 4)  Extending PostgreSQL's plugin support with additional hooks in the
> >      backend e.g. :
> >       - for adding new tablestore engines (like mysql can)
>

my$ql's multiple table handlers is about the ugliest hack I have ever seen
inside a database.  I mean I used to not like it, but I've been studying it a
little bit lately and now find it absolutly dreadfull.  I can't imagine that
we would ever implement a scheme like the one they have used; whatever
advantage people think they can gain from such a setup can probably be
implemented in a cleaner fasion in postgresql assuming it would be an
advantage at all (and some of those features have been dismissed in the past
as well so there's no garauntee)

> >       - for adding callbacks that get's called on transaction
> > success/failure using SPI. (e.g. for housekeeping and cleanup)
>
> Would this be like an ON COMMIT TRIGGER?
>
Another idea I have seen shot down on hackers a number of times...

The point of this email being that, I think the general idea probably needs to
be that any coordinated community sponsored development needs to be centered
on picking your favorite items from the TODO list to be worked on rather than
just specifying a list of things you think should be the top priorities. Of
course there is nothing preventing people from getting new items added to the
todo list, but as a general guidline picking items from the todo gets you
halfway home right out of the gate.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Robert Treat
Date:
On Saturday 30 April 2005 06:05, Kris Jurka wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Nicolai Petri (lists) wrote:
> > We also use PostgreSQL as our primary db so it would be more than likely
> > that we would donate money for something similar with postgresql if
> > either :
> >   a) we can direct the money at one or more specific tasks
> >   or
> >   b) the tasks founded will be related to core postgresql features e.g.
> >      generel performance or other benefits that fits all.
>
> The problem is organization.  Who decides who gets what money?  What about
> features that are paid for and worked on and not accepted into the
> community codebase?  This was something I hoped the PostgreSQL Foundation
> http://thepostgresqlfoundation.org/ would step in and do, but we seem much
> more focused on advocacy efforts rather than developemnt ones.
>

We need to get our 501c status out of the way before we can really get
involved in these issues. Once that happens there will certainly be
opportunity to discuss what role we should play in pushing forward
development.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Andrew Dunstan <> writes:
>> Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
>> whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.
>
> Yeah.  Bruce and I were worrying about this on the phone today.
> If a company is doing some work with the intent that it's a proprietary
> extension they can sell, no problem --- the BSD license is specifically
> intended to let them do that.  What's bothering us is the thought that
> people are off in corners developing code that they think they are going
> to contribute back into the community code base "after it's done".  Past
> history shows that the odds of getting such things accepted into the PG
> community code base are *very* bad if you didn't communicate with the
> community from the start of your development process.
>
> We'd like to avoid such unpleasant surprises, but how to get the word
> out?

Well, any company that is going to do something like this is going to have
some sort of representative on the lists ... why not write up a short FAQ,
posted once a month to -hackers, explain how we contributions work, and
that any company lookin gdown this direction should contact the list, and
make sure that there is some sort of liason ...

that is by no means the wording I'd suggestion, just the concept ... this
thread will act as a good 'heads up' to those already here, but its
something that needs to be brought up regularly for those 'new to the
lists' ...


  ----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email:            Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:21:35PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If money's not an issue anymore, can we get a bigger box to host
>>> pgfoundry on then? :)
>>
>> It's been done and is in the process of being brought up at a new colo
>> facility. There is also a backup box being built for failover purposes ;)
>
> Any ETA? I don't mean to harp, but it looks really bad when someone new
> to postgresql comes to investigate something and the site is just
> crawling.

When is the last time you checked it?  While waiting for the new server to
be ready, I've moved the site to the new server that just went online this
past week ... its still not a rocket, but its not 'just crawling' either
...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email:            Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Josh Berkus
Date:
Jurka,

> One thing that definitely would be nice would be to be able to combine
> funds from various sponsors for various features.  Alone a company can't
> spring for it, but by pooling resources it could get done.  This is a lot
> tougher to coordinate and unless there is a complete spec in place
> different sponsors will pull in different directions.  Other bounty type
> schemes don't seem to produce results, largely from a lack of cash.
> (Here's $500 for two weeks of work).

Actually, I talked to Opensoucexperts.com about this ages ago and they set up
an online bounty system for OSS projects in general.  I know that other
players in the OSS space have talked about similar things; also companies
like SRA and CMD are willing to act as development $$$ funnels for
multi-party projects.

> The problem is organization.  Who decides who gets what money?  What about
> features that are paid for and worked on and not accepted into the
> community codebase?  This was something I hoped the PostgreSQL Foundation
> http://thepostgresqlfoundation.org/ would step in and do, but we seem much
> more focused on advocacy efforts rather than developemnt ones.

Unfortunately, pooling funds for development is not something a non-profit can
realistically do in the US without a whole lot of legal/tax help to navigate
US law.    Here NPOs are strictly defined as non-commercial.   It might make
sense to set up an NPO in another country, such as Australia, where the
regulations on such things are much more liberal.  More importantly, the
Foundation is *still* waiting on its NPO paperwork from the IRS, and I really
don't want to do any major fundraising while there's still the possibility we
could be denied.

> Well the backup should come up in a couple of weeks. I know that the new
> pgFoundry is being worked on right now. Josh would have a better idea.

We ran into a problem installing GForge.   I don't know if Tom had time to
work on it over the weekend; if not I'll be tackling it tonight.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Chris Travers
Date:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>
> I've deliberately let the dust settle slightly on this.
>
> One thing that might help is a more open sponsorship "clearing house".
> Example (not meant as a bid, but just to illustrate): the JDBC driver
> needs a scanner overhaul - it breaks on dollar quoting and a bunch of
> other stuff. I could do that work (as could others, of course) but I
> don't have time, unless someone buys some of my professional time.
> Someone might want to do just that, but how would they find me?
>
> Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
> whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.
>
I like this idea.

There is another issue too.  In general, there is a feeling like one
needs to produce something that works and not wait for the slower
movement of the community's approval.  I don't think several open source
forks for the project necessarily produce problems if most of these are
used as experimental projects.  The example which comes to mind is
Samba-TNG.   So some of this concern may be overblown.

This is also the way things work with the SQL Standard:  The various
vendors (PostgreSQL included) go out and start with the base, extend
that feature set, and eventually come back together to try to build the
next standard based on everyone's experience.  This embrace and extend
process is indeed critical for the further development of the standard.

At the same time, I agree with Bruce's main point-- that the lack of
communication is a threat to this progress.  So at least some note of
"Best practices" regarding these extensions or contributions would be a
help.  Adding a clearing house to this would also add a critical tool
and would also have the side effect of increasing the pace of
development.  Maybe have it divided into two sections:  Bids and Bounties.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Anyone interested in pooling funds for features should take a look at
http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/funding.html, which is about a FreeBSD
developer who offered to work full-time on developing some specific
features should enough people donate. Also worthy of mention is
http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/.

I think that for certain key features there's probably a lot of people
who would fork over between $100 and $1000 towards getting a feature
completed. Improved replication might be a good example. Table
partitioning would absolutely be an example. If there was a means for
these people to donate money towards work being done on some feature,
it's very likely that large chunks of development time could be paid for
just from smaller shops, let alone places that can afford to toss $20k
towards the development of something.

On Sat, Apr 30, 2005 at 12:47:45AM -0500, Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> > One thing that might help is a more open sponsorship "clearing house".
> > Example (not meant as a bid, but just to illustrate): the JDBC driver
> > needs a scanner overhaul - it breaks on dollar quoting and a bunch of
> > other stuff. I could do that work (as could others, of course) but I
> > don't have time, unless someone buys some of my professional time.
> > Someone might want to do just that, but how would they find me?
>
> I don't think this is a big issue.  I don't know of any companies who were
> desperate for a feature and willing to throw money at the problem who
> couldn't find a developer to take them up on it.  Right now this seems to
> be a kind of behind the scenes operation that relies heavily on knowing
> the right people, but I think most of our sponsor contact points are able
> to point sponsors to the right people.  Could this process be more open?
> Depends on how the sponsor wants to handle it, they probably don't just
> want to throw the task out there and see who comes calling, they want an
> assurance from someone they trust that the chosen developer is capable.
>
> One thing that definitely would be nice would be to be able to combine
> funds from various sponsors for various features.  Alone a company can't
> spring for it, but by pooling resources it could get done.  This is a lot
> tougher to coordinate and unless there is a complete spec in place
> different sponsors will pull in different directions.  Other bounty type
> schemes don't seem to produce results, largely from a lack of cash.
> (Here's $500 for two weeks of work).
>
> Anyone care to shed some light on how it works now?
>
> Kris Jurka
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>       subscribe-nomail command to  so that your
>       message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:21:35PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >If money's not an issue anymore, can we get a bigger box to host
> >pgfoundry on then? :)
>
> It's been done and is in the process of being brought up at a new colo
> facility. There is also a backup box being built for failover purposes ;)

Any ETA? I don't mean to harp, but it looks really bad when someone new
to postgresql comes to investigate something and the site is just
crawling.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:02:51PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Right now on the front page when we ask for support we are asking for
> people to donate money. We don't need money. We need people. The support
> link goes to bandwidth but a great deal of the project is hosted over
> many, many servers with many providers. That really isn't as much of an
> issue anymore. At least IMHO.

If money's not an issue anymore, can we get a bigger box to host
pgfoundry on then? :)
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Nicolai Petri (lists)"
Date:
> Anyone interested in pooling funds for features should take a look at
> http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/funding.html, which is about a FreeBSD
> developer who offered to work full-time on developing some specific
> features should enough people donate. Also worthy of mention is
> http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/.
This was really a great idea and we (my company) also supported it because
we use freebsd as our primary os. We also use PostgreSQL as our primary db
so it would be more than likely that we would donate money for something
similar with postgresql if either :
  a) we can direct the money at one or more specific tasks
  or
  b) the tasks founded will be related to core postgresql features e.g.
     generel performance or other benefits that fits all.

> I think that for certain key features there's probably a lot of people
> who would fork over between $100 and $1000 towards getting a feature
> completed.
Yes - without any promise I would probably be able to raise between $1000
and $3000 in a period of the next 3 months. I would definately try it
and I have multiple customers that have giving their intent on something
like this.

> Improved replication might be a good example. Table
> partitioning would absolutely be an example. If there was a means for
> these people to donate money towards work being done on some feature,
> it's very likely that large chunks of development time could be paid for
> just from smaller shops, let alone places that can afford to toss $20k
> towards the development of something.
I totally agree. In our preference list I would have the following tasks :
 1)  IOT (Index Ordered Tables)
 2)  Table partitioning
 3)  Better multimaster replication framework
 4)  Extending PostgreSQL's plugin support with additional hooks in the
      backend e.g. :
       - for adding new tablestore engines (like mysql can)
       - for adding callbacks that get's called on transaction
success/failure
         using SPI. (e.g. for housekeeping and cleanup)
 5)  Adding parameter support for NOTIFY / LISTEN

> Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               

Nicolai Petri
COD, catpipe systems - denmark


Ps. sorry for the x-post - should this be moved to advocacy ?



Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Mitch Pirtle
Date:
On 4/30/05, Jim C. Nasby <> wrote:
>
> If money's not an issue anymore, can we get a bigger box to host
> pgfoundry on then? :)

If you guys are planning on running Gforge, then you better make 'box' plural.

I'm running MamboForge.net, and the poor thing is getting beat into
the cold hard earth every day. We (Mambo) should really have two
servers, at least to dedicate hardware to the database. Most of the
servers in that class are dual Xeons as well - just as an indicator of
what you are getting yourselves into ;-)

Contact me directly if you have any questions about Gforge and
administration or load.

-- Mitch

Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
"Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> On 4/30/05, Jim C. Nasby <> wrote:
>
>>If money's not an issue anymore, can we get a bigger box to host
>>pgfoundry on then? :)
>
>
> If you guys are planning on running Gforge, then you better make 'box' plural.

Well we already run it :) For pgFoundry and you are correct it seems to
be a bit of a pig. Our new machines should handle it better though.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

[OT] Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Tom Copeland
Date:
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:26 -0400, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> If you guys are planning on running Gforge, then you better make 'box' plural.
>
> I'm running MamboForge.net, and the poor thing is getting beat into
> the cold hard earth every day. We (Mambo) should really have two
> servers, at least to dedicate hardware to the database. Most of the
> servers in that class are dual Xeons as well - just as an indicator of
> what you are getting yourselves into ;-)

Of course, Mitch is running the second largest GForge site on the planet
(as far as I know).... second only to https://helixcommunity.org/.
Here's a list of them:

http://gforge.org/docman/view.php/1/52/gforge-sites.html

Yours,

Tom Copeland



Re: [OT] Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Mitch Pirtle
Date:
On 5/4/05, Russell Smith <> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 May 2005 04:40 am, Tom Copeland wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:26 -0400, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> >
> > Of course, Mitch is running the second largest GForge site on the planet
> > (as far as I know).... second only to https://helixcommunity.org/.
> > Here's a list of them:
> >
> > http://gforge.org/docman/view.php/1/52/gforge-sites.html
> >
> Where does all the CPU/disk time go?   Do we have any idea what are the strained parts of the system?
>
> Is it the database?

It is an even mix of apache/mod_php and postgresql. After looking
around, I'm not that impressed with the state of the PHP code, and
suspect that the data model may also be in great need of some TLC.

Thinking about getting more involved in Gforge, to see if some of the
glaring issues can be taken care of.

-- Mitch

Re: [OT] Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From
Russell Smith
Date:
On Wed, 4 May 2005 04:40 am, Tom Copeland wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 14:26 -0400, Mitch Pirtle wrote:
> > If you guys are planning on running Gforge, then you better make 'box' plural.
> >
> > I'm running MamboForge.net, and the poor thing is getting beat into
> > the cold hard earth every day. We (Mambo) should really have two
> > servers, at least to dedicate hardware to the database. Most of the
> > servers in that class are dual Xeons as well - just as an indicator of
> > what you are getting yourselves into ;-)
>
> Of course, Mitch is running the second largest GForge site on the planet
> (as far as I know).... second only to https://helixcommunity.org/.
> Here's a list of them:
>
> http://gforge.org/docman/view.php/1/52/gforge-sites.html
>
Where does all the CPU/disk time go?   Do we have any idea what are the strained parts of the system?

Is it the database?

Regards

Russell Smith.
> Yours,
>
> Tom Copeland
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to 
>
>