Thread: lots of PostgreSQL-related posts on Planet MySQL lately
Just a heads up... http://summize.com/search?q=&ands=postgresql&phrase=&ors=¬s=&tag=&lang=all&from=planetmysql&to=&ref=&near=&within=15&units=mi&since=&until=&rpp=15 * MySQL versus PostgreSQL http://tinyurl.com/698y48 (expand) * Where is MySQL ahead of PostgreSQL: This is going to be an unusual blog post, because I will continuo.. http://tinyurl.com/6nrwxc (expand) * PostgreSQL getting with the program: PostgreSQL is a sleeping giant that is waking up. And instead of.. http://tinyurl.com/6zjxpx (expand) * From MySQL to PostgreSQL http://tinyurl.com/5axm5q (expand) &c. -selena -- Selena Deckelmann United States PostgreSQL Association - http://www.postgresql.us PDXPUG - http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx Me - http://www.chesnok.com/daily
Well MySQL vs PostgreSQL stuff is always seen... but well from what i've read i think well you know "more people switching"... here in venezuela i've seen some more people leaving MySQL or taking a look to pgsql... and its being more and more common... 2008/6/4 Selena Deckelmann <selenamarie@gmail.com>: > Just a heads up... > > http://summize.com/search?q=&ands=postgresql&phrase=&ors=¬s=&tag=&lang=all&from=planetmysql&to=&ref=&near=&within=15&units=mi&since=&until=&rpp=15 > > * MySQL versus PostgreSQL http://tinyurl.com/698y48 (expand) > * Where is MySQL ahead of PostgreSQL: This is going to be an unusual > blog post, because I will continuo.. http://tinyurl.com/6nrwxc > (expand) > * PostgreSQL getting with the program: PostgreSQL is a sleeping giant > that is waking up. And instead of.. http://tinyurl.com/6zjxpx (expand) > * From MySQL to PostgreSQL http://tinyurl.com/5axm5q (expand) > > &c. > > -selena > > -- > Selena Deckelmann > United States PostgreSQL Association - http://www.postgresql.us > PDXPUG - http://pugs.postgresql.org/pdx > Me - http://www.chesnok.com/daily > > -- > Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy >
I give a plug to to PostgreSQL as the base for a variety of data warehousing products in a blog article, ParAccel Excels By Tapping Experience and Open Source, at http://www.intelligententerprise.com/blog/archives/2008/06/how_paraccel_ex.html Seth -- Seth Grimes Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor grimes@altaplana.com http://altaplana.com 301-270-0795
On Thursday 05 June 2008 11:24:44 Seth Grimes wrote: > I give a plug to to PostgreSQL as the base for a variety of data > warehousing products in a blog article, ParAccel Excels By Tapping > Experience and Open Source, at > http://www.intelligententerprise.com/blog/archives/2008/06/how_paraccel_ex. >html > AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products. And actually, I don't know of any contributions they have made directly to the community. They hired command prompt to do some work, and that was contributed back, but not sure on the specifics (i'd guess contributing back might have been part of the deal)... the people I know who work there are swell guys though! :-) Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should probably be credited as such. -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 17:08 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 05 June 2008 11:24:44 Seth Grimes wrote: > AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products. And actually, I > don't know of any contributions they have made directly to the community. > They hired command prompt to do some work, and that was contributed back, but > not sure on the specifics (i'd guess contributing back might have been part > of the deal)... the people I know who work there are swell guys though! :-) Yes part of the deal was that the work we would do for them would be contributed back to the community. They are looking at other such contributions as well. > > Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres > database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should > probably be credited as such. Is it still maintained? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
"Truviso Contributes PostgreSQL Enhancements to Open Source Community": http://truviso.com/news/080418.html Bizgres is dormant and has not had a release post the 0.9 release over 2 years ago. With the inclusion of open-source GridSQL in EnterpriseDB's open-source Postgres Plus distribution, there is no good reason for anyone to use Bizgres any more. Greenplum should acknowledge these points and, unless they're going to update Bizgres, they should bury it. By the way, I've just learned that Astor's nCluster is based on PostgreSQL even though there's no mention of that (that I saw) on their Web site, http://www.asterdata.com/. I'm trying to get details. Seth On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 17:08 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: >> On Thursday 05 June 2008 11:24:44 Seth Grimes wrote: > >> AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products. And actually, I >> don't know of any contributions they have made directly to the community. >> They hired command prompt to do some work, and that was contributed back, but >> not sure on the specifics (i'd guess contributing back might have been part >> of the deal)... the people I know who work there are swell guys though! :-) > > Yes part of the deal was that the work we would do for them would be > contributed back to the community. They are looking at other such > contributions as well. > >> >> Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres >> database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should >> probably be credited as such. > > Is it still maintained? > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > -- Seth Grimes Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor grimes@altaplana.com http://altaplana.com 301-270-0795
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote: > AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products. The wording in this article was a bit unfortunate. Truviso does distribute open-source components as part of its product, but there's not a fully open-source "distribution" released publicly the way Bizgress and Postgres Plus are. This is fairly similar to the EDB situation when one is using their Postgres Plus Advanced Server, in that the database component of a Truviso install will feel like PostgreSQL in most respects to users, but with additional features available. That is quite different from, say, Netezza, where you're not so obviously using PostgreSQL under the hood. So I think that Seth Grimes got the basic grouping right but didn't use the best terminology to describe the distinction. > And actually, I don't know of any contributions they have made directly > to the community. Don't make me start one of those discussions about how there are a lot of way to directly contribute to the community besides straight code writing. If we start it will get Joshua all worked up about that again. As already pointed out, there are some code contributions from Truviso in the works, but they haven't really solidifed into new visible features quite yet. A distinction is this area is probably a better way to distinguish between the two groups Grimes was trying to point out. Truviso and EDB's products track the stock PostgreSQL enough that the two companies can usefully send code to the larger community. If either company is sending in a patch, it's against HEAD just like any other contributor. I don't think Netezza or even Greenplum are in that category anymore. (Obligatory disclaimer: Greg Smith works for Truviso but doesn't speak for Truviso in any capacity) -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 18:36 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote: > e best terminology to describe the distinction. > > > And actually, I don't know of any contributions they have made directly > > to the community. > > Don't make me start one of those discussions about how there are a lot of > way to directly contribute to the community besides straight code writing. > If we start it will get Joshua all worked up about that again. I actually consider the Truviso contribution direct to the community. Its just that CMD was paid to do it. This isn't really any different than the work Alvaro did on multi-vacuum workers. CMD didn't "directly" do the work, we paid a human to do that, Alvaro. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Thursday 05 June 2008 18:36:39 Greg Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote:
> > AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products.
>
> The wording in this article was a bit unfortunate. Truviso does
> distribute open-source components as part of its product, but there's not
> a fully open-source "distribution" released publicly the way Bizgress and
> Postgres Plus are.
>
> This is fairly similar to the EDB situation when one is using their
> Postgres Plus Advanced Server, in that the database component of a Truviso
> install will feel like PostgreSQL in most respects to users, but with
> additional features available. That is quite different from, say,
> Netezza, where you're not so obviously using PostgreSQL under the hood.
> So I think that Seth Grimes got the basic grouping right but didn't use
> the best terminology to describe the distinction.
>
But there isn't any floss software actually being shipped right? License/code
wise truviso and netezza are basically the same in that respect, even if
technologically truviso values postgres compatability higher, but there is no
floss distributing occuring, right?
> > And actually, I don't know of any contributions they have made directly
> > to the community.
>
> Don't make me start one of those discussions about how there are a lot of
> way to directly contribute to the community besides straight code writing.
> If we start it will get Joshua all worked up about that again.
>
Oh, I understand that, but I even with the other ways, I don't know where
Truvisio draws that line. Granted even if thier corporate policy is "never
work on postgres during business hours", we're still getting good returns
from them by keeping folks like yourself and/or neil close to the postgres
community. Certainly more than what we have seen from companies like Netezza.
> As already pointed out, there are some code contributions from Truviso in
> the works, but they haven't really solidifed into new visible features
> quite yet. A distinction is this area is probably a better way to
> distinguish between the two groups Grimes was trying to point out.
> Truviso and EDB's products track the stock PostgreSQL enough that the two
> companies can usefully send code to the larger community. If either
> company is sending in a patch, it's against HEAD just like any other
> contributor. I don't think Netezza or even Greenplum are in that category
> anymore.
>
Hard to say. I think there is stuff in Greenplum that could be patched back to
HEAD without too much extra work (possibly on-disk bitmap indexes for
example), but there is certainly some areas where the code has drifted enough
to make contributing back a major undertaking.
> (Obligatory disclaimer: Greg Smith works for Truviso but doesn't speak
> for Truviso in any capacity)
>
:-)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
I updated my blog article. I hope this text improves the accuracy:
And note that of those companies, only EnterpriseDB distributes an
open-source product, Postgres Plus, which adds MPP and other capabilities
to base PostgreSQL. A Truviso press release does state, "Truviso-sponsored
improvements are expected to be included in the next release of
PostgreSQL, scheduled for early 2009."
If Aster Data Systems (nCluster), Dataupia, Greenplum, or Netezza is
giving back to open-source PostgreSQL, I'd like to know about it for a
follow-on article. That article would also mention DATAllegro's use of
Ingres and possibly Eigenbase/LucidDB. Netezza forked Postgres so long
ago that I would guess, by the way, that their code stream isn't
compatible enough with PostgreSQL for there to be anything that could be
included.
Seth
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 05 June 2008 18:36:39 Greg Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote:
>>> AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products.
>>
>> The wording in this article was a bit unfortunate. Truviso does
>> distribute open-source components as part of its product, but there's not
>> a fully open-source "distribution" released publicly the way Bizgress and
>> Postgres Plus are.
>>
>> This is fairly similar to the EDB situation when one is using their
>> Postgres Plus Advanced Server, in that the database component of a Truviso
>> install will feel like PostgreSQL in most respects to users, but with
>> additional features available. That is quite different from, say,
>> Netezza, where you're not so obviously using PostgreSQL under the hood.
>> So I think that Seth Grimes got the basic grouping right but didn't use
>> the best terminology to describe the distinction.
>>
>
> But there isn't any floss software actually being shipped right? License/code
> wise truviso and netezza are basically the same in that respect, even if
> technologically truviso values postgres compatability higher, but there is no
> floss distributing occuring, right?
>
>>> And actually, I don't know of any contributions they have made directly
>>> to the community.
>>
>> Don't make me start one of those discussions about how there are a lot of
>> way to directly contribute to the community besides straight code writing.
>> If we start it will get Joshua all worked up about that again.
>>
>
> Oh, I understand that, but I even with the other ways, I don't know where
> Truvisio draws that line. Granted even if thier corporate policy is "never
> work on postgres during business hours", we're still getting good returns
> from them by keeping folks like yourself and/or neil close to the postgres
> community. Certainly more than what we have seen from companies like Netezza.
>
>> As already pointed out, there are some code contributions from Truviso in
>> the works, but they haven't really solidifed into new visible features
>> quite yet. A distinction is this area is probably a better way to
>> distinguish between the two groups Grimes was trying to point out.
>> Truviso and EDB's products track the stock PostgreSQL enough that the two
>> companies can usefully send code to the larger community. If either
>> company is sending in a patch, it's against HEAD just like any other
>> contributor. I don't think Netezza or even Greenplum are in that category
>> anymore.
>>
>
> Hard to say. I think there is stuff in Greenplum that could be patched back to
> HEAD without too much extra work (possibly on-disk bitmap indexes for
> example), but there is certainly some areas where the code has drifted enough
> to make contributing back a major undertaking.
>
>> (Obligatory disclaimer: Greg Smith works for Truviso but doesn't speak
>> for Truviso in any capacity)
>>
>
> :-)
>
>
--
Seth Grimes Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management
Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor
grimes@altaplana.com http://altaplana.com 301-270-0795
Slightly different category, but xTuple (formerly OpenMFG) has been distributing a Postgres-powered ERP/CRM/accounting systemfor six years. And since last summer, there's been a "pure" FLOSS version which we're calling xTuple ERP: PostBooksEdition (http://sf.net/projects/postbooks). Cheers, Ned -- Ned Lilly President and CEO xTuple (formerly OpenMFG) 119 West York Street Norfolk, VA 23510 tel. 757.461.3022 x101 email: ned@xtuple.com www.xtuple.com On 6/6/2008 11:35 AM Seth Grimes wrote: > I updated my blog article. I hope this text improves the accuracy: > > And note that of those companies, only EnterpriseDB distributes an > open-source product, Postgres Plus, which adds MPP and other > capabilities to base PostgreSQL. A Truviso press release does state, > "Truviso-sponsored improvements are expected to be included in the next > release of PostgreSQL, scheduled for early 2009." > > If Aster Data Systems (nCluster), Dataupia, Greenplum, or Netezza is > giving back to open-source PostgreSQL, I'd like to know about it for a > follow-on article. That article would also mention DATAllegro's use of > Ingres and possibly Eigenbase/LucidDB. Netezza forked Postgres so long > ago that I would guess, by the way, that their code stream isn't > compatible enough with PostgreSQL for there to be anything that could be > included. > > Seth > > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote: > >> On Thursday 05 June 2008 18:36:39 Greg Smith wrote: >>> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote: >>>> AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products. >>> >>> The wording in this article was a bit unfortunate. Truviso does >>> distribute open-source components as part of its product, but there's >>> not >>> a fully open-source "distribution" released publicly the way Bizgress >>> and >>> Postgres Plus are. >>> >>> This is fairly similar to the EDB situation when one is using their >>> Postgres Plus Advanced Server, in that the database component of a >>> Truviso >>> install will feel like PostgreSQL in most respects to users, but with >>> additional features available. That is quite different from, say, >>> Netezza, where you're not so obviously using PostgreSQL under the hood. >>> So I think that Seth Grimes got the basic grouping right but didn't use >>> the best terminology to describe the distinction. >>> >> >> But there isn't any floss software actually being shipped right? >> License/code >> wise truviso and netezza are basically the same in that respect, even if >> technologically truviso values postgres compatability higher, but >> there is no >> floss distributing occuring, right? >> >>>> And actually, I don't know of any contributions they have made directly >>>> to the community. >>> >>> Don't make me start one of those discussions about how there are a >>> lot of >>> way to directly contribute to the community besides straight code >>> writing. >>> If we start it will get Joshua all worked up about that again. >>> >> >> Oh, I understand that, but I even with the other ways, I don't know where >> Truvisio draws that line. Granted even if thier corporate policy is >> "never >> work on postgres during business hours", we're still getting good returns >> from them by keeping folks like yourself and/or neil close to the >> postgres >> community. Certainly more than what we have seen from companies like >> Netezza. >> >>> As already pointed out, there are some code contributions from >>> Truviso in >>> the works, but they haven't really solidifed into new visible features >>> quite yet. A distinction is this area is probably a better way to >>> distinguish between the two groups Grimes was trying to point out. >>> Truviso and EDB's products track the stock PostgreSQL enough that the >>> two >>> companies can usefully send code to the larger community. If either >>> company is sending in a patch, it's against HEAD just like any other >>> contributor. I don't think Netezza or even Greenplum are in that >>> category >>> anymore. >>> >> >> Hard to say. I think there is stuff in Greenplum that could be patched >> back to >> HEAD without too much extra work (possibly on-disk bitmap indexes for >> example), but there is certainly some areas where the code has drifted >> enough >> to make contributing back a major undertaking. >> >>> (Obligatory disclaimer: Greg Smith works for Truviso but doesn't speak >>> for Truviso in any capacity) >>> >> >> :-) >> >> > > -- > Seth Grimes Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management > Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor > grimes@altaplana.com http://altaplana.com 301-270-0795 >
On Friday 06 June 2008 11:35:05 Seth Grimes wrote:
> If Aster Data Systems (nCluster), Dataupia, Greenplum, or Netezza is
> giving back to open-source PostgreSQL, I'd like to know about it for a
> follow-on article.
Of the above, Greenplum is the only one that has a working relationship with
the postgresql community.
BTW, does this mean you confirmed Aster is based on postgres? I've not seen
any public evidence of that so far, so would be curious to see some.
> That article would also mention DATAllegro's use of
> Ingres and possibly Eigenbase/LucidDB. Netezza forked Postgres so long
> ago that I would guess, by the way, that their code stream isn't
> compatible enough with PostgreSQL for there to be anything that could be
> included.
>
Hard to say... it is really in a companies best interested to keep thier
codebase close to postgres's if possible (though it certainly takes some
effort). Since they didn't contribute to postgres back when they were
starting out though, code drift isn't neccessarily a given; it's more that
they see postgres and thier code as "secret sauce" that they'd rather others
didnt know about.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
xzilla@users.sourceforge.net (Robert Treat) writes: > But there isn't any floss software actually being shipped right? > License/code wise truviso and netezza are basically the same in that > respect, even if technologically truviso values postgres > compatability higher, but there is no floss distributing occuring, > right? I was under the impression that there were some commits to HEAD that had been sponsored by Truviso. If that be the case, I'd expect there to be some commits, probably somewhere around April, when the press release took place, that we could point to. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com'; http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stays up all night wondering if there really is a Dog?
I acknowledge that I am about to ask a simplistic question. But you don't
learn if you don't ask...
My understanding is that the MPP vendors using PostgreSQL and Ingres are
not *significantly* altering the software other than to, essentially, turn
off reliance on indexes. They're then adding extensions that are
proprietary and not, except in the case of GridSQL, open source. Is my
understanding correct?
It would be great to have a comment from Luke Lonergan or someone from
EnterpriseDB.
Thanks,
Seth
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Friday 06 June 2008 11:35:05 Seth Grimes wrote:
>> If Aster Data Systems (nCluster), Dataupia, Greenplum, or Netezza is
>> giving back to open-source PostgreSQL, I'd like to know about it for a
>> follow-on article.
>
>
> Of the above, Greenplum is the only one that has a working relationship with
> the postgresql community.
>
> BTW, does this mean you confirmed Aster is based on postgres? I've not seen
> any public evidence of that so far, so would be curious to see some.
>
>> That article would also mention DATAllegro's use of
>> Ingres and possibly Eigenbase/LucidDB. Netezza forked Postgres so long
>> ago that I would guess, by the way, that their code stream isn't
>> compatible enough with PostgreSQL for there to be anything that could be
>> included.
>>
>
> Hard to say... it is really in a companies best interested to keep thier
> codebase close to postgres's if possible (though it certainly takes some
> effort). Since they didn't contribute to postgres back when they were
> starting out though, code drift isn't neccessarily a given; it's more that
> they see postgres and thier code as "secret sauce" that they'd rather others
> didnt know about.
>
>
--
Seth Grimes Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management
Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor
grimes@altaplana.com http://altaplana.com 301-270-0795
Chris Browne wrote: > I was under the impression that there were some commits to HEAD that > had been sponsored by Truviso. > > If that be the case, I'd expect there to be some commits, probably > somewhere around April, when the press release took place, that we > could point to. The following commits were sponsored by Truviso: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-03/msg00520.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-05/msg00220.php and other minor associated cleanups. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Seth Grimes <grimes@altaplana.com> wrote: > My understanding is that the MPP vendors using PostgreSQL and Ingres are not > *significantly* altering the software other than to, essentially, turn off > reliance on indexes. They're then adding extensions that are proprietary > and not, except in the case of GridSQL, open source. Is my understanding > correct? We make closed-source changes related to the Postgres core related to performance and Oracle compatibility. But, while these changes are fairly significant, they do not prevent us from laying over a newer version of Postgres. Similarly, as you mentioned, GridSQL is fully open source. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Friday 06 June 2008 18:32:23 Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Seth Grimes <grimes@altaplana.com> wrote:
> > My understanding is that the MPP vendors using PostgreSQL and Ingres are
> > not *significantly* altering the software other than to, essentially,
> > turn off reliance on indexes. They're then adding extensions that are
> > proprietary and not, except in the case of GridSQL, open source. Is my
> > understanding correct?
>
> We make closed-source changes related to the Postgres core related to
> performance and Oracle compatibility. But, while these changes are
> fairly significant, they do not prevent us from laying over a newer
> version of Postgres. Similarly, as you mentioned, GridSQL is fully
> open source.
>
Note that GridSQL, while it works with postgres, was developed completely
seperate and independently from postgresql.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 19:58 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Friday 06 June 2008 18:32:23 Jonah H. Harris wrote: > > We make closed-source changes related to the Postgres core related to > > performance and Oracle compatibility. But, while these changes are > > fairly significant, they do not prevent us from laying over a newer > > version of Postgres. Similarly, as you mentioned, GridSQL is fully > > open source. > > > > Note that GridSQL, while it works with postgres, was developed completely > seperate and independently from postgresql. Well GridSQL isn't even an extension to PostgreSQL is it? It is written in java and appears to be a userland application (or middleware if you prefer). I could be wrong. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008, Robert Treat wrote: > But there isn't any floss software actually being shipped right? License/code > wise truviso and netezza are basically the same in that respect, even if > technologically truviso values postgres compatability higher, but there is no > floss distributing occuring, right? It's complicated and not something I'm at liberty to discuss. Suffice it to say that there's a large list of FLOSS credits for the software stack that Truviso provides to customers. But a look at the web site will note the lack of the usual "Download" tab for the world at large, and the exact details of how the FLOSS software distributed fits together isn't public info yet at this point. Tell you any more I'd have to kill you, etc. > Oh, I understand that, but I even with the other ways, I don't know > where Truvisio draws that line. Granted even if thier corporate policy > is "never work on postgres during business hours"... We're a startup--it's always business hours. The line you hypothesize isn't really drawn too brightly. It may materialize further once I talk with management about whether the days I spend at OSCON next month are work or vacation time. If there's a BWPUG meeting next week (note subtle hint that it's not clear yet whether there is or not) and I'm in town this time I have a good story for you about that. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Well GridSQL isn't even an extension to PostgreSQL is it? It is written > in java and appears to be a userland application (or middleware if you > prefer). I could be wrong. Correct, sort of. GridSQL is not part of the core server, it is a separate Java-based distributed database which front-ends a cluster of Postgres servers. Originally, GridSQL was written to be database independent. However, over the last year, it has been specialized for Postgres. Some of these specializations include support of the Postgres wire-level protocol, an understanding of Postgres SQL syntax, etc. Coming versions of GridSQL will support more native Postgres features and may benefit from some of our internal changes to the database core. Regardless, it is open source and should always run against standard PostgreSQL. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Seth, > If Aster Data Systems (nCluster), Dataupia, Greenplum, or Netezza is > giving back to open-source PostgreSQL, I'd like to know about it for a > follow-on article. That article would also mention DATAllegro's use of > Ingres and possibly Eigenbase/LucidDB. Netezza forked Postgres so long > ago that I would guess, by the way, that their code stream isn't > compatible enough with PostgreSQL for there to be anything that could be > included. Greenplum has contributed both code and money in the past. They don't look likely to do so this year, but they haven't said they won't either. You missed Yahoo in the list of derivatives. They've contributed money to pgCon, and are discussing contributing code. One of the other DW companies is meeting me on Tuesday to talk about contributing something unspecified; more when we do a PR. Netezza has not contributed anything to date. --Josh Berkus
Seth, > My understanding is that the MPP vendors using PostgreSQL and Ingres are > not *significantly* altering the software other than to, essentially, > turn off reliance on indexes. They're then adding extensions that are > proprietary and not, except in the case of GridSQL, open source. Is my > understanding correct? Actually, that's incorrect. Greenplum, Yahoo and Netezza all made substantial alterations to the PostgreSQL code. Greenplum has re-written the executor and bulk loader, and seems to be on the way to re-writing the planner entirely. Yahoo and Netezza each pretty much ripped out everthing except for the parser and a few other bits (Yahoo kept the Function code, for example), but replaced a majority of the PostgreSQL code. I wouldn't classify GridSQL as MPP. It's strictly PP. --Josh Berkus
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > I wouldn't classify GridSQL as MPP. It's strictly PP. Hmm, how did you come to that conclusion? From every definition of MPP I can find, GridSQL meets the requirements. GridSQL: - Acts as a single, large-scale system by means of shared-nothing clustering (as does Greenplum IIRC) - Partitions and executes independent units-of-work in parallel across multiple independent microprocessors - Is capable of scaling to hundreds (if not thousands) of nodes What definition are you using, because I can't seem to find it in my top 5? -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 17:08 -0400, Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 05 June 2008 11:24:44 Seth Grimes wrote: > > I give a plug to to PostgreSQL as the base for a variety of data > > warehousing products in a blog article, ParAccel Excels By Tapping > > Experience and Open Source, at > > http://www.intelligententerprise.com/blog/archives/2008/06/how_paraccel_ex. > >html > > > > AFAIK Truvisio does not distribute any open source products. And actually, I > don't know of any contributions they have made directly to the community. > They hired command prompt to do some work, and that was contributed back, but > not sure on the specifics (i'd guess contributing back might have been part > of the deal)... the people I know who work there are swell guys though! :-) > > Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres > database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should > probably be credited as such. Greenplum sponsored my efforts to include Partitioning and Sort improvements into 8.1 and 8.2 respectively, and have contributed at least 3 other patches that the community has rejected (for whatever reason). IMHO, Bizgres was really their way of showing that useful work had been done, but I agree it is out of date now in many respects because and only because it hasn't been updated since 8.1. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
Josh, may I quote this in a possible blog article? --
> Greenplum has re-written the executor and bulk loader, and seems to be
> on the way to re-writing the planner entirely. Yahoo and Netezza each
> pretty much ripped out everthing except for the parser and a few other
> bits (Yahoo kept the Function code, for example), but replaced a
> majority of the PostgreSQL code.
I'm not sure I'll use it however. If I do, how would you like to be
identified PostgreSQL wise?
Thanks,
Seth
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Seth,
>
>> My understanding is that the MPP vendors using PostgreSQL and Ingres are
>> not *significantly* altering the software other than to, essentially, turn
>> off reliance on indexes. They're then adding extensions that are
>> proprietary and not, except in the case of GridSQL, open source. Is my
>> understanding correct?
>
> Actually, that's incorrect. Greenplum, Yahoo and Netezza all made
> substantial alterations to the PostgreSQL code. Greenplum has re-written the
> executor and bulk loader, and seems to be on the way to re-writing the
> planner entirely. Yahoo and Netezza each pretty much ripped out everthing
> except for the parser and a few other bits (Yahoo kept the Function code, for
> example), but replaced a majority of the PostgreSQL code.
>
> I wouldn't classify GridSQL as MPP. It's strictly PP.
>
> --Josh Berkus
>
>
--
Seth Grimes Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management
Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor
grimes@altaplana.com http://altaplana.com 301-270-0795
Jonah, > Hmm, how did you come to that conclusion? From every definition of > MPP I can find, GridSQL meets the requirements. > > GridSQL: > - Acts as a single, large-scale system by means of shared-nothing > clustering (as does Greenplum IIRC) > - Partitions and executes independent units-of-work in parallel across > multiple independent microprocessors > - Is capable of scaling to hundreds (if not thousands) of nodes > > What definition are you using, because I can't seem to find it in my top 5? I was looking at the inability to do unrestricted joins across nodes, but I realize that there are other MPP systems that have the same restriction. So I guess that's too fine a restriction. What's the largest GridSQL cluster anyone's tested, so far? Could we look at using it for TPC-H? --Josh
On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 18:32 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > The following commits were sponsored by Truviso: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-03/msg00520.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-05/msg00220.php > and other minor associated cleanups. It's also worth noting that I've contributed a few fixes for issues that we've run into at Truviso, for example for memory leaks that become rather more dire when you're running queries that last for weeks at a time. For example: http://markmail.org/message/i4labjcqf4wfpt5t http://markmail.org/message/odpoi5envkmamkps The patch I committed to add support for hashing for the "numeric" data type was also motivated by Truviso requirements: http://markmail.org/message/lqe7fftpx5ztmz6n More broadly, we're hoping to keep our diff against vanilla Postgres as small as possible, and limited to our core focus (continuous queries and stream processing). As such, we're keen to contribute bugfixes back upstream, as well as sponsor development on upstream features that we'd like to see added rather than trying to add them to our codebase ourselves and then maintain them indefinitely. -Neil
Josh Berkus wrote: >> If Aster Data Systems (nCluster), Dataupia, Greenplum, or Netezza... > > You missed Yahoo in the list of derivatives. ... Fujitsu has (had?) a noteworthy derivative as well. IIRC, they bolted the front end of postgres to their ESM storage engine. http://www.fastware.com.au/docs/FujitsuSupportedPostgreSQLWhitePaper.pdf The fact that a large (bigger than Oracle) company like Fujitsu supported postgres (both their own fork and the normal one as well) was useful to me a couple times on convincing companies that Postgres was a serious product worthy of consideration with the big vendors.
Simon Riggs wrote: > > Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres > > database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should > > probably be credited as such. > > Greenplum sponsored my efforts to include Partitioning and Sort > improvements into 8.1 and 8.2 respectively, and have contributed at > least 3 other patches that the community has rejected (for whatever > reason). IMHO, Bizgres was really their way of showing that useful work > had been done, but I agree it is out of date now in many respects > because and only because it hasn't been updated since 8.1. The bottom line is that Greenplum is fading farther and farther from Postgres community involvement, as far as I can tell. :-( -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 00:05 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres > > > database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should > > > probably be credited as such. > > > > Greenplum sponsored my efforts to include Partitioning and Sort > > improvements into 8.1 and 8.2 respectively, and have contributed at > > least 3 other patches that the community has rejected (for whatever > > reason). IMHO, Bizgres was really their way of showing that useful work > > had been done, but I agree it is out of date now in many respects > > because and only because it hasn't been updated since 8.1. > > The bottom line is that Greenplum is fading farther and farther from > Postgres community involvement, as far as I can tell. :-( I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their participation. When the project allowed one company to sponsor the meeting it made a huge error, especially when the project had no need for the funding. It sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were not represented either, on the day. I am worried about contribution levels from all companies and also note that EnterpriseDB's real contributions to the community of late are not significantly larger than 2ndQuadrant's, now you've spurred me to think about the topic. What can we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or > unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the > recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people > were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their > participation. When the project allowed one company to sponsor the > meeting it made a huge error, especially when the project had no need > for the funding. It sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were > not represented either, on the day. Both Greenplum and Truvisio had people invited, and if you recall when organising the meeting I repeatedly asked everyone to point out if I'd missed anyone. My primary concern when inviting people was to invite the most highly active developers. Secondary to that, I made a point of inviting at least one senior person from each of the major PostgreSQL contributing companies, including both of those organisations. *No* companies were intentionally excluded, and I assure you that except where funding was concerned, the meeting was organised entirely with my core hat on. EDB paid for the lunch and the room, largely because when considering holding another community meeting in NJ (as you've previously attended), Denis and I figured that a much more open meeting would be more useful to everyone, so I set about to organise exactly that. If you wish to 'right the wrong' that you see, then next year 2nd Quadrant are more than welcome to pay for the food and conference room, and I will continue to organise the event. I really don't care who pays for the chairs and sandwiches. > I am worried about contribution > levels from all companies and also note that EnterpriseDB's real > contributions to the community of late are not significantly larger than > 2ndQuadrant's, now you've spurred me to think about the topic. I'm not going to go into specifics, but code contributions to the server are by no means the only contributions EnterpriseDB make to the community. We're doing a lot of marketing work to try and help drive adoption of PostgreSQL, and reaching out into other communities with new tools and other code contributions to help them move to PostgreSQL. I spend significant amounts of time working on community 'stuff' that you probably don't see so much these days, as does Bruce (contrary to rumours spread by Denis at pgCon :-p), and EDB staff help people out on various mailing lists every day. > What can > we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? Now *that* is a good question. The primary driver for a company to contribute to the community is of course that they will gain from it. The tangible benefits to Truvisio and Greenplum are obviously far less than they are to 2nd Quadrant or EnterpriseDB because their businesses are built around such heavily modified versions of the server. I don't see that we can necessarily change that. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or >> unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the >> recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people >> were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their >> participation. When the project allowed one company to sponsor the >> meeting it made a huge error, especially when the project had no need >> for the funding. It sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were >> not represented either, on the day. > > Both Greenplum and Truvisio had people invited, and if you recall when > organising the meeting I repeatedly asked everyone to point out if I'd > missed anyone. My primary concern when inviting people was to invite > the most highly active developers. Secondary to that, I made a point > of inviting at least one senior person from each of the major > PostgreSQL contributing companies, including both of those > organisations. *No* companies were intentionally excluded, and I > assure you that except where funding was concerned, the meeting was > organised entirely with my core hat on. I was certainly disappointed that we didn't have representation from said companies there, but I don't see how the organizers can be blamed for that (neither edb nor the community side of Dave). I'd be even more concerned if these companies actually didn't come there *because* it was sponsored by EDB. But unless someone from said companies say that's why they weren't there, I'll refuse to think that's why :-) And for the record, I clearly recall Dave asking people to let him know if anybody was forgotten from the list. If the event had been named "enterprisedb developer meeting" or something, I can agree it would be an issue. But it has clearly been named "pgcon developer meeting" that is sponsored by EDB. I can't see anything wrong in that. And in the end, I don't see any reason for us to *turn down* sponsorship unless it comes with restrictions attached - which AFAICS this one certainly didn't. > EDB paid for the lunch and the room, largely because when considering > holding another community meeting in NJ (as you've previously > attended), Denis and I figured that a much more open meeting would be > more useful to everyone, so I set about to organise exactly that. > > If you wish to 'right the wrong' that you see, then next year 2nd > Quadrant are more than welcome to pay for the food and conference > room, and I will continue to organise the event. I really don't care > who pays for the chairs and sandwiches. +1 on not caring. Having the meeting was, IMHO, a very good thing. It could just as well have been paid for by SPI or whatever (which might be with money indirectly contributed from the same people - again, I don't care). The real value was in *making it happen*, which Dave did. He may have used other ppl in edb to make it happen, or he could use external people. I don't care - it happened, and that was good :-) >> What can >> we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? Yes, that is certainly a good question, but IMHO not related to the dev meeting in itself. //Magnus
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 09:13 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > > I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or > > unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the > > recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people > > were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their > > participation. When the project allowed one company to sponsor the > > meeting it made a huge error, especially when the project had no need > > for the funding. It sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were > > not represented either, on the day. > > Both Greenplum and Truvisio had people invited, and if you recall when > organising the meeting I repeatedly asked everyone to point out if I'd > missed anyone. My primary concern when inviting people was to invite > the most highly active developers. Secondary to that, I made a point > of inviting at least one senior person from each of the major > PostgreSQL contributing companies, including both of those > organisations. *No* companies were intentionally excluded, and I > assure you that except where funding was concerned, the meeting was > organised entirely with my core hat on. > > EDB paid for the lunch and the room, largely because when considering > holding another community meeting in NJ (as you've previously > attended), Denis and I figured that a much more open meeting would be > more useful to everyone, so I set about to organise exactly that. > > If you wish to 'right the wrong' that you see, then next year 2nd > Quadrant are more than welcome to pay for the food and conference > room, and I will continue to organise the event. I really don't care > who pays for the chairs and sandwiches. First of all, thank you for organising. Everything went well. I believe you did all you personally could to make that a success. I have no criticism of you. I have further points to make, but my replies will be delayed for many hours yet since I am busy this morning. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Simon Riggs wrote: > When the project allowed one company to sponsor the meeting it made a > huge error, especially when the project had no need for the funding. It > sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were not represented > either, on the day. We had two major customer releases going out the door the next week and couldn't spare anybody to attend. Just bad timing; up until the last minute both myself and Neil Conway were planning to attend. You can look at the last few entries in the "News" section of truviso.com to see one of the new on-line partnerships we were busy launching at the end of May instead. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Dave Page wrote: > The tangible benefits to Truviso and Greenplum are obviously far less > than they are to 2nd Quadrant or EnterpriseDB because their businesses > are built around such heavily modified versions of the server. It would be more accurate to consider Truviso's product a heavily extended version of the server, rather than doing so much modifying of the stock PostgreSQL programs like Greenplum does. We've been kicking back any internal upgrades we needed to the core code itself whenever possible, just haven't been too many of them yet because we're still so busy building new extensions instead. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 06:37 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 00:05 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > The bottom line is that Greenplum is fading farther and farther from > > Postgres community involvement, as far as I can tell. :-( > > I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or > unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the > recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people > were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their > participation. When the project allowed one company to sponsor the > meeting it made a huge error, especially when the project had no need > for the funding. I find this line of thought bogosity and I thank EDB for sponsoring lunch for the event. I am also pretty sure knowing Dave, Denis and Andy that if I had said, "I would like to sponsor part of the meeting" they would have let CMD do so. As much as I like to carouse about EDB the fact is they are a fair community player and they try very hard to make sure they don't step on toes. > It sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were > not represented either, on the day. I am worried about contribution I guarantee you they could have been, should they wanted to be. Considering that GreenPlum and Truviso are not EDB competitors, CMD is. CMD was well represented. > levels from all companies and also note that EnterpriseDB's real > contributions to the community of late are not significantly larger than > 2ndQuadrant's, now you've spurred me to think about the topic. I find when one feels the need to quantify the amount of contributions they are making against another, they are feeling somewhat inadequate about their own participation. Which is one of the reasons I think you don't see EDB and CMD comparing themselves at all. Since you brought it up, although your participation is greatly appreciated and is significant you are not 5 people and last I checked EDB was sponsoring 5 people to contribute to this community and they are doing so. Including: Pavel Dave Bruce Heikki Greg Stark So I would consider your point pretty much moot, unless of course your only argument is lines of code. > What can > we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? > I know that JoshB and I are constantly speaking with companies to get them to contribute (code and otherwise). Joshua D. Drake
Dear colleagues, On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:44:11AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > So I would consider your point pretty much moot, unless of course your > only argument is lines of code. [&c.] Surely there are better things we can do than compare the sizes of our respective, uh, contribution lists. Could we end this thread, please? A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 00:05 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > > Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres
> > > > database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should
> > > > probably be credited as such.
> > >
> > > Greenplum sponsored my efforts to include Partitioning and Sort
> > > improvements into 8.1 and 8.2 respectively, and have contributed at
> > > least 3 other patches that the community has rejected (for whatever
> > > reason). IMHO, Bizgres was really their way of showing that useful work
> > > had been done, but I agree it is out of date now in many respects
> > > because and only because it hasn't been updated since 8.1.
> >
> > The bottom line is that Greenplum is fading farther and farther from
> > Postgres community involvement, as far as I can tell. :-(
>
> I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or
> unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the
> recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people
> were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their
> participation.
I have been trying to get Luke Lonergan on the phone for a few months to
try to encourage him, but have still not talked to him --- not sure what
else I can do.
I saw Luke listed on the PGCon committee but didn't see any Greenplum
employees at the PGCon conference:
http://www.pgcon.org/2008/committee.php
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:42 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 6:37 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or > >> unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the > >> recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people > >> were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their > >> participation. When the project allowed one company to sponsor the > >> meeting it made a huge error, especially when the project had no need > >> for the funding. It sent the wrong message and I noted that Truviso were > >> not represented either, on the day. > > > > Both Greenplum and Truvisio had people invited, and if you recall when > > organising the meeting I repeatedly asked everyone to point out if I'd > > missed anyone. My primary concern when inviting people was to invite > > the most highly active developers. Secondary to that, I made a point > > of inviting at least one senior person from each of the major > > PostgreSQL contributing companies, including both of those > > organisations. *No* companies were intentionally excluded, and I > > assure you that except where funding was concerned, the meeting was > > organised entirely with my core hat on. > > I was certainly disappointed that we didn't have representation from > said companies there, but I don't see how the organizers can be blamed > for that (neither edb nor the community side of Dave). OK, if that's how my comments appear then I'm happy to apologise to everybody at EDB if I appeared to make such a trivial suggestion. I meant only to observe that the reasons for non-contribution are never simple and that we must all try hard to encourage sponsorship from all companies, not just our own. I'm glad Dave organised the meeting and felt it was a success. > And in the end, I don't see any reason for us to *turn down* sponsorship I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" and that includes not accepting gifts of any kind, though anonymous donations are always acceptable. If we don't do this, then people may get the impression that certain companies dominate and that can easily lead to non-contribution. So IMHO, being even handed is critically important to our future. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 21:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:42 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Dave Page wrote: > I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" and Well PostgreSQL.Org is not a non profit organization, it is a community and PgCon is a commercial event, so I am not sure how this is relevant? > that includes not accepting gifts of any kind, though anonymous > donations are always acceptable. > What? I welcome any donation directly and advertised from EDB to PGUS as it will help us achieve our goals. I look forward to them being partners in the success of the corporation. That does not mean however that I will (as anyone will attest per my talk at MySQLCon about Sun) cater to them. They should donate if they believe in the direction of the corporation. > If we don't do this, then people may get the impression that certain > companies dominate and that can easily lead to non-contribution. So > IMHO, being even handed is critically important to our future. Ahh now I see where you are coming from. If we follow the meritocracy model, it doesn't matter who is contributing, commercial or individual, it is the merits of those contributions that allow for the success. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
I didn't get a reply from Lonergan or anyone at Greenplum when I was
inquiring about Bizgres status a few months ago. The only thing company
spokespeople have wanted to talk about recently is their new customer
wins. That's legit, but the silence on other stuff related to open source
does suggest that they've pulled back from OS, gone down the Netezza road
rather than, say, the EnterpriseDB path.
Seth
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 00:05 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>>>> Greenplum does distribute an open source product, specifically the bizgres
>>>>> database. It's not widely used, but it is still available, so they should
>>>>> probably be credited as such.
>>>>
>>>> Greenplum sponsored my efforts to include Partitioning and Sort
>>>> improvements into 8.1 and 8.2 respectively, and have contributed at
>>>> least 3 other patches that the community has rejected (for whatever
>>>> reason). IMHO, Bizgres was really their way of showing that useful work
>>>> had been done, but I agree it is out of date now in many respects
>>>> because and only because it hasn't been updated since 8.1.
>>>
>>> The bottom line is that Greenplum is fading farther and farther from
>>> Postgres community involvement, as far as I can tell. :-(
>>
>> I agree with that assessment. I don't think it's a desirable or
>> unchangeable outcome, which is why I initially refused to attend the
>> recent EnterpriseDB-sponsored developer meeting unless Greenplum people
>> were also invited. I would like to see people encourage their
>> participation.
>
> I have been trying to get Luke Lonergan on the phone for a few months to
> try to encourage him, but have still not talked to him --- not sure what
> else I can do.
>
> I saw Luke listed on the PGCon committee but didn't see any Greenplum
> employees at the PGCon conference:
>
> http://www.pgcon.org/2008/committee.php
>
>
--
Seth Grimes Alta Plana Corp, analytical computing & data management
Intelligent Enterprise magazine (CMP), Contributing Editor
grimes@altaplana.com http://altaplana.com 301-270-0795
Simon Riggs wrote: > > And in the end, I don't see any reason for us to *turn down* sponsorship > > I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" and > that includes not accepting gifts of any kind, though anonymous > donations are always acceptable. > > If we don't do this, then people may get the impression that certain > companies dominate and that can easily lead to non-contribution. So > IMHO, being even handed is critically important to our future. I am not sure how anonymous-only contributions are supposed to work. EnterpriseDB employs me, but no one is supposed to know that? EnterpriseDB sponsors a dinner at PGCon but the sponsor is a secret? We can do anonymous-only contributions, but that is going to certainly limit contributions. I am not sure how a company contribution will be explained to the accounting staff if it has to be anonymous. I think the big question is what are anonymous-only contributions trying to solve? I have never heard of problems of favortism to contributors, so why take a hit on contributions to avoid something no one has reported to have happened? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 22:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > And in the end, I don't see any reason for us to *turn down* sponsorship > > > > I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" and > > that includes not accepting gifts of any kind, though anonymous > > donations are always acceptable. > > > > If we don't do this, then people may get the impression that certain > > companies dominate and that can easily lead to non-contribution. So > > IMHO, being even handed is critically important to our future. > > I am not sure how anonymous-only contributions are supposed to work. > EnterpriseDB employs me, but no one is supposed to know that? > EnterpriseDB sponsors a dinner at PGCon but the sponsor is a secret? You just have the table cloth black and all the cups red. The point will get across :P Joshua D. Drake
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 22:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > And in the end, I don't see any reason for us to *turn down* sponsorship > > > > I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" and > > that includes not accepting gifts of any kind, though anonymous > > donations are always acceptable. > > > > If we don't do this, then people may get the impression that certain > > companies dominate and that can easily lead to non-contribution. So > > IMHO, being even handed is critically important to our future. > > I am not sure how anonymous-only contributions are supposed to work. > EnterpriseDB employs me, but no one is supposed to know that? > EnterpriseDB sponsors a dinner at PGCon but the sponsor is a secret? > > We can do anonymous-only contributions, but that is going to certainly > limit contributions. I am not sure how a company contribution will be > explained to the accounting staff if it has to be anonymous. > > I think the big question is what are anonymous-only contributions trying > to solve? I have never heard of problems of favortism to contributors, > so why take a hit on contributions to avoid something no one has > reported to have happened? I'm expressing a clear principle. I don't see this principle as being hard to implement. "Peace talks, sponsored by Group X", will be unlikely to bring the other party to the table. I want to demonstrate a level playing field, so that all feel welcome to contribute. I am worried that if things get out of balance then it will go badly for us in the future. Unfortunately, those are principles, not clear guidelines, so yes, what I have asked for raises many questions. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 13:26 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 21:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:42 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" > and > > Well PostgreSQL.Org is not a non profit organization That is news to me. Who gets the financial profits then? Why are we registering in various countries as a non-profit? -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 13:26 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 21:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:42 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> > > Dave Page wrote: >> >> > I do. Non-profit organisations must be run "without fear or favour" >> and >> >> Well PostgreSQL.Org is not a non profit organization > > That is news to me. Who gets the financial profits then? Why are we > registering in various countries as a non-profit? postgresql.org isn't, and never has registered as a non-profit. We have individual user groups that are registering themselves around the world, but they are organised independently of postgresql.org, though obviously there is overlap in the people involved and mission etc. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 08:44 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Since you brought it up, although your participation is greatly > appreciated and is significant you are not 5 people and last I checked > EDB was sponsoring 5 people to contribute to this community I am not personally 5 people, whatever the rumours :-). Yet 2ndQuadrant is more than 5 people. All of us believe in contributing to PostgreSQL, and not just in code. My original point was that EDB's contributions seem to have dropped significantly in recent months, which is as much a concern to me as Greenplum's contributions. Mentioning 2ndQuadrant in that context wen't really material to my point. > > What can > > we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? > > I know that JoshB and I are constantly speaking with companies to get > them to contribute (code and otherwise). Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 08:21:39AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > Well PostgreSQL.Org is not a non profit organization > > That is news to me. Who gets the financial profits then? Why are we > registering in various countries as a non-profit? Legally speaking, under ICANN's rules, postgresql.org is delegated to Marc Fournier as a representative of PostgreSQL, Inc. Joshua may be referring, however, to the PGDG, the legal status of which is at least not plain. I believe that ambiguity is by design. It's trivially true that the PGDG is the collection of all the individuals that have ever contributed. Whether that collection constitutes an organisation is something that's never been clarified. I rather hope we never have the opportunity for some jurisdiction to attempt to clarify it. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the > right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the > contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. We don't need to create those conditions, because they're already there. Part of the reason I had a relatively easy time convincing my management at Afilias to release Slony was the lousy experience we had with erserver: enhancements were hard, every bug discovered in the system was one we found, there was no community with whom to discuss enhancements, &c. Managing your own software is _work_, and if the code you're using needs to be synchronised in some way with code coming from elsewhere, you either have to have a really significant source of income from that private code (which makes the cost and effort of maintaining your private tree worth it), or else you will naturally want to find a way to minimise those costs. The obvious way to minimise them is to make them public, so that the ongoing maintenance becomes everyone's problem. This is really one of the core "open source" (rather than free) software arguments, and one that is often overlooked compared to the quality argument that is often advanced. But IT departments and software shops don't care nearly as much about quality, alas, as they care about shedding costs that they can't attribute to revenue somewhere. Software is a business. Crappy quality hurts you all along, but it's hard to measure and the costs are usually not directly associated (on the balance sheet that lands before the CFO) with the source of the problem. Keeping people on staff to maintain your own personal software that is ancillary to your main line of business, however, is a demonstrable cost that shows up on spreadsheets. It will get cut, or you'll find a way to attribute revenue to it. I suspect (but have no real evidence for the theory) that the above reasoning is why some of the earlier "private" edb enhancements ended up getting contributed instead. I think it was Neil, upthread, who said approximately the same thing about Truviso: enhancements that they make that aren't key to their central commercial problem are enhancements they don't want to maintain privately, because it's just distracting. I imagine that Greenplum's problem is that maintaining Bizgres is too distracting, because not enough of what they are doing can be released without undermining their own revenue stream. Since just about no other contributors showed up, there was little justification for the work on Bizgres. So I don't think there's an issue here. I think any artificial efforts to make things "easier" for the firms will not actually have the effect we want, because the main incentive for company-mandated contributions (money) is already present. A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@commandprompt.com +1 503 667 4564 x104 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> >> Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the >> right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the >> contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. > > enhancements that they make that aren't key to their central > commercial problem are enhancements they don't want to > maintain privately, because it's just distracting. Well said IMHO. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
Simon Riggs wrote: > > > What can > > > we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? > > > > I know that JoshB and I are constantly speaking with companies to get > > them to contribute (code and otherwise). > > Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the > right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the > contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. I am having to read between the lines here, but, Simon, are you worried that some companies might contribute so much that other companies will not see the value in contributing? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 08:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 13:26 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 21:21 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 10:42 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > > Dave Page wrote: > > Well PostgreSQL.Org is not a non profit organization > > That is news to me. Who gets the financial profits then? Why are we > registering in various countries as a non-profit? The current financial recipient of PostgreSQL.Org donations is Software in the Public Interest (http://www.spi-inc.org/). The donations made to PostgreSQL via that entity are earmarked for our (.Org) use. SPI takes 5% of the donation for this service. In return we get free legal, and book keeping services (some other stuff as well but that is what we use). In the future it is likely that the amount of money going through SPI will go down, mainly because there are two large non profits in the middle of finishing up, PGEU and PGUS. There are also other more directed non profits in existence, ITPUG has a non profit, as does PostgreSQLFR. There are particular efforts are obviously directly at Italy and France respectively. Lastly, there are our Japanese friends, JPUG. They are also a non profit (to my understanding). They focus all of their energy in Japan. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 14:06 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 08:44 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > I know that JoshB and I are constantly speaking with companies to get > > them to contribute (code and otherwise). > > Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the > right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the > contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. You can't because by nature Companies don't do the "right" thing. They do the "profitable" thing. There must be a positive capital return to the donation. EDB and CMD (and 2ndQuandrant) gain a considerable amount of capital return from the investments they make, because they make money off of PostgreSQL. However, ADP (which actually does give a lot back in a tertiary fashion) doesn't gain from giving directly to PostgreSQL. The traditional arguments of, if we don't have contributors we don't grow, and the project suffers doesn't apply. Why? Because they have the expertise to maintain the code themselves (just like Yahoo). They currently chose not to, but chose PostgreSQL because they "could" should they need to. I agree that it would be wonderful if we could have an environment where the companies that use PostgreSQL feel it is a responsibility to participate but I seriously doubt that will ever be the case (just looking at Open Source as a whole). Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 10:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > What can > > > > we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? > > > > > > I know that JoshB and I are constantly speaking with companies to get > > > them to contribute (code and otherwise). > > > > Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the > > right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the > > contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. > > I am having to read between the lines here, but, Simon, are you worried > that some companies might contribute so much that other companies will > not see the value in contributing? Yes, but its not just the contribution, so much as the external perception of it. Contributing to MySQL has always been possible for companies, yet almost none have done so. Since MySQL AB reassumed total control of the MySQL project the number of postings to hacker lists and number of external patches has dropped significantly. I don't want things to go in that direction, so I want PostgreSQL to be very clearly a multi-company, multi-user effort, in as many ways as practical. And, yes, I sometimes answer mail to info@2ndquadrant.com. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 10:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > > What can > > > > > we do to actively encourage participation from all companies? > > > > > > > > I know that JoshB and I are constantly speaking with companies to get > > > > them to contribute (code and otherwise). > > > > > > Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the > > > right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the > > > contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. > > > > I am having to read between the lines here, but, Simon, are you worried > > that some companies might contribute so much that other companies will > > not see the value in contributing? > > Yes, but its not just the contribution, so much as the external > perception of it. Contributing to MySQL has always been possible for > companies, yet almost none have done so. Since MySQL AB reassumed total > control of the MySQL project the number of postings to hacker lists and > number of external patches has dropped significantly. I don't want > things to go in that direction, so I want PostgreSQL to be very clearly > a multi-company, multi-user effort, in as many ways as practical. > > And, yes, I sometimes answer mail to info@2ndquadrant.com. Ah, yes, this is certainly something we always want to avoid --- having one company be so closely associated with Postgres that people think the company owns it and therefore controls it. Is that a problem now? What things can the community or companies do to avoid that? We could scale back contributions, but I am afraid that will hurt more than help. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > Ah, yes, this is certainly something we always want to avoid --- having > one company be so closely associated with Postgres that people think the > company owns it and therefore controls it. > > Is that a problem now? What things can the community or companies do to > avoid that? We could scale back contributions, but I am afraid that > will hurt more than help. I don't see it as a problem in any way at this point, it used to be... 7 years ago. Now there are just too many companies and contributors involved. Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Ah, yes, this is certainly something we always want to avoid --- > having > one company be so closely associated with Postgres that people think > the > company owns it and therefore controls it. > > Is that a problem now? What things can the community or companies do > to avoid that? I think you, as a Core member, should answer that question, not me. > We could scale back contributions, but I am afraid that will hurt more > than help. I notice you said "we" when you meant "EnterpriseDB". This list is about PostgreSQL advocacy, not the companies we belong to... -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 11:31 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Ah, yes, this is certainly something we always want to avoid --- > > having > > one company be so closely associated with Postgres that people think > > the > > company owns it and therefore controls it. > > > > Is that a problem now? What things can the community or companies do > > to avoid that? > > I think you, as a Core member, should answer that question, not me. My core status isn't relevant, I think. > > We could scale back contributions, but I am afraid that will hurt more > > than help. > > I notice you said "we" when you meant "EnterpriseDB". This list is about > PostgreSQL advocacy, not the companies we belong to... Oh, you got me. I am going back to hiding in my Death Star now. ;-) Seriously, I mean "we" as in "we (the community) require all contributions to be anonymous", which is what you suggested. I did not mean EnterpriseDB. I could try to get EnterpriseDB to scale back their contributions, as you suggested, but I am not sure I would be successful, and I am not sure that is what the community wants (nor do I believe it would be in the community's best interest). I could resign from EnterpriseDB (I do have control over that), and that would cut their contribution level, at least temporarily. (The idea of Denis as Darth Vader really has humor potential.) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: > > I think you, as a Core member, should answer that question, not me. > > My core status isn't relevant, I think. I would agree, as I recall this isn't in Core's mission at all. The fact that you are also a major contributor is the status that matters here. > Oh, you got me. I am going back to hiding in my Death Star now. ;-) > > Seriously, I mean "we" as in "we (the community) require all > contributions to be anonymous", which is what you suggested. I did not > mean EnterpriseDB. Why in god's name would we require contributions to be anonymous? That is silly. However, I don't think we should attribute to companies in patches, we attribute to people. > > I could try to get EnterpriseDB to scale back their contributions, as > you suggested, but I am not sure I would be successful, and I am not You could try but then you would be dealing with me on this thread and not Simon :P. The idea that we should get anyone to scale back is ridiculous. > > (The idea of Denis as Darth Vader really has humor potential.) > http://www.commandprompt.com/TUX/07/png/l06-04.png Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 09:31 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 12:19 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > I think you, as a Core member, should answer that question, not me. > > > > My core status isn't relevant, I think. > > I would agree, as I recall this isn't in Core's mission at all. The fact > that you are also a major contributor is the status that matters here. > > > Oh, you got me. I am going back to hiding in my Death Star now. ;-) > > > > Seriously, I mean "we" as in "we (the community) require all > > contributions to be anonymous", which is what you suggested. I did not > > mean EnterpriseDB. > > Why in god's name would we require contributions to be anonymous? That > is silly. However, I don't think we should attribute to companies in > patches, we attribute to people. ... I'm dropping off this thread now. My points have been made upthread. Thanks for your time guys, -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
All, > > We can do anonymous-only contributions, but that is going to certainly > > limit contributions. I am not sure how a company contribution will be > > explained to the accounting staff if it has to be anonymous. As someone with three years professional fundraising and one of a few who do the large-gift fundraising for PostgreSQL here in the US, donated corporate funds come out of a company's marketing department. As Mal Warwick, head of the Bay Area's largest fundraising consulting firm says, "Companies' charitible giving budgets are generally less than 1% of their marketing budgets." Companies want to stick their names on things. So, requiring cash donations to be anonymous would basically cut our corporate gifts (70% of all money we get) by 99%. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > > > We can do anonymous-only contributions, but that is going to certainly > > > limit contributions. I am not sure how a company contribution will be > > > explained to the accounting staff if it has to be anonymous. > > As someone with three years professional fundraising and one of a few who > do the large-gift fundraising for PostgreSQL here in the US, donated > corporate funds come out of a company's marketing department. As Mal > Warwick, head of the Bay Area's largest fundraising consulting firm says, > "Companies' charitible giving budgets are generally less than 1% of their > marketing budgets." Companies want to stick their names on things. > > So, requiring cash donations to be anonymous would basically cut our > corporate gifts (70% of all money we get) by 99%. Yes, that was my assumption too. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 10:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > All, > > > > We can do anonymous-only contributions, but that is going to certainly > > > limit contributions. I am not sure how a company contribution will be > > > explained to the accounting staff if it has to be anonymous. > > As someone with three years professional fundraising and one of a few who > do the large-gift fundraising for PostgreSQL here in the US, donated > corporate funds come out of a company's marketing department. As Mal > Warwick, head of the Bay Area's largest fundraising consulting firm says, > "Companies' charitible giving budgets are generally less than 1% of their > marketing budgets." Companies want to stick their names on things. > > So, requiring cash donations to be anonymous would basically cut our > corporate gifts (70% of all money we get) by 99%. What I've tried to get across here is that its OK to contribute to Postgres (money or code) and receive credit for doing so, but we shouldn't accept name sponsorship of official Postgres business. For example, the President's Annual Speech is never listed as "President's speech, sponsored by Microsoft", or "The Microsoft President's Speech". The President may well have accepted public contributions into his election fund from Microsoft, but that doesn't mean the Office itself has been purchased in some way. Mostly we already do this, so when people do official things they use a neutral email address, for example Josh's recent announcement was made from PGDG rather than Sun. If we let that slip, then IMHO it will be a bad thing for the future of the project, in its current form. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 19:38 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 10:25 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > All, > Mostly we already do this, so when people do official things they use a > neutral email address, for example Josh's recent announcement was made > from PGDG rather than Sun. > > If we let that slip, then IMHO it will be a bad thing for the future of > the project, in its current form. O.k. this makes sense. So the action that caused this feedback was: "The" PostgreSQL.org Developer meeting was sponsored by EnterpriseDB. And you feel that since it was a literal PostgreSQL.Org developer meeting versus some adhoc get together that it should not be considered sponsored by anyone except PostgreSQL.Org? I can actually get behind this idea because. It falls into line with the same thing we are doing with booths now. If you want to staff a booth, you wear a PostgreSQL shirt. If you want to present materials at a PostgreSQL booth, it goes into the PostgreSQL folder. It is not allowed out on the tables, except in that folder etc... Of course the question is: Was that meeting an actual PostgreSQL.Org sanctioned meeting, or was it just Dave at the behest and support of his employer organizing a bunch of developers for a meeting. Those are two very different things. Consider that PGCON is a commercial conference. I think it would have really been up to Dan to determine whether or not that sponsorship was appropriate, not PostgreSQL.Org. IDG does this for LinuxWorld for example. Sure, they gave us a room so we could have a PGDay but they have explicitly dictated how things like sponsorships are going to work. It isn't up to us. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
On 13 Jun 2008, at 19:43, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > >> > "The" PostgreSQL.org Developer meeting was sponsored by EnterpriseDB. In which case it was my bad, as that was my wording. It was never suggested by EnterpriseDB management that we should be credited - that was simply me being upfront about who was paying. > > Of course the question is: Was that meeting an actual PostgreSQL.Org > sanctioned meeting, or was it just Dave at the behest and support of > his > employer organizing a bunch of developers for a meeting. Those are two > very different things. We have had meetings with community members in the past. After I started a discussion about holding another, Denis & I agreed an event at pgCon would be far more useful for everyone. I was given permission to fund the event, and went ahead with the organisation. I kept various people in the loop on what I was doing, but did nothing at the behest of management. > > Consider that PGCON is a commercial conference. I think it would have > really been up to Dan to determine whether or not that sponsorship was > appropriate, not PostgreSQL.Org. Not really - it was in Ottawa, during pgCon, but not at pgCon. That said, Dan's help with the arrangements was invaluable and I remain in debt to him. /D
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 20:09 +0100, Dave Page wrote: > > On 13 Jun 2008, at 19:43, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> > wrote: > > Consider that PGCON is a commercial conference. I think it would have > > really been up to Dan to determine whether or not that sponsorship was > > appropriate, not PostgreSQL.Org. > > Not really - it was in Ottawa, during pgCon, but not at pgCon. > > That said, Dan's help with the arrangements was invaluable and I > remain in debt to him. Yeah, I think this whole thing is just mostly a perception issue. I don't see a problem. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > /D >
Simon, all, > Mostly we already do this, so when people do official things they use a > neutral email address, for example Josh's recent announcement was made > from PGDG rather than Sun. Hey, how much do you think we could get to sponsor an update release? "PostgreSQL 8.3.3 was brought to you by the letters S, P, and I, the number 3 and Afilias." ;-) --Josh
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 10:15 -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 02:06:01PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > > > Many others do this also, but my concern is with how we can create the > > right conditions under which contribution is a positive thing for the > > contributor, not just a charitable, and therefore a more optional, act. > > We don't need to create those conditions, because they're already > there. > > Part of the reason I had a relatively easy time convincing my > management at Afilias to release Slony was the lousy experience we had > with erserver: enhancements were hard, every bug discovered in the > system was one we found, there was no community with whom to discuss > enhancements, &c. Managing your own software is _work_, and if the > code you're using needs to be synchronised in some way with code > coming from elsewhere, you either have to have a really significant > source of income from that private code (which makes the cost and > effort of maintaining your private tree worth it), or else you will > naturally want to find a way to minimise those costs. The obvious way > to minimise them is to make them public, so that the ongoing > maintenance becomes everyone's problem. > > This is really one of the core "open source" (rather than free) > software arguments, and one that is often overlooked compared to the > quality argument that is often advanced. But IT departments and > software shops don't care nearly as much about quality, alas, as they > care about shedding costs that they can't attribute to revenue > somewhere. Software is a business. Crappy quality hurts you all > along, but it's hard to measure and the costs are usually not directly > associated (on the balance sheet that lands before the CFO) with the > source of the problem. Keeping people on staff to maintain your own > personal software that is ancillary to your main line of business, > however, is a demonstrable cost that shows up on spreadsheets. It > will get cut, or you'll find a way to attribute revenue to it. > > I suspect (but have no real evidence for the theory) that the above > reasoning is why some of the earlier "private" edb enhancements ended > up getting contributed instead. I think it was Neil, upthread, who > said approximately the same thing about Truviso: enhancements that > they make that aren't key to their central commercial problem are > enhancements they don't want to maintain privately, because it's > just distracting. I imagine that Greenplum's problem is that > maintaining Bizgres is too distracting, because not enough of what > they are doing can be released without undermining their own revenue > stream. Since just about no other contributors showed up, there was > little justification for the work on Bizgres. > > So I don't think there's an issue here. I think any artificial > efforts to make things "easier" for the firms will not actually have > the effect we want, because the main incentive for company-mandated > contributions (money) is already present. Well argued, that all makes sense. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support