Thread: PostgreSQL Timeline

Hi,

I'm currently building an visual timeline of all PostgreSQL versions and
its forks. This is gonna be a lot of work and I'll be happy if I can
finish it before we celebrate the 30th anniversay of Stonebraker
launching his Post-Ingres project ;-)


For now, I've done the easy part but before adding the forks, I'd like
to know what you think of this :

https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png

I am correct ? Did I miss something ?

In the end the goal is to have an A2 poster and put it behind the PG
booth at meetings and conferences.

Of course, anyone who wants to get involved is welcome. I could use some
help when listing all the forks and searching for their history...

The source code is here :
https://github.com/daamien/artwork/tree/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline

Any comment is welcome.

--
Damien Clochard

On 2013.09.17 3:12 PM, damien clochard wrote:
> https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png
>
> I am correct ? Did I miss something ?

Postgres 8.2 is missing; you went from 8.1 to 8.3. -- Darren Duncan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/18/2013 12:12 AM, damien clochard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently building an visual timeline of all PostgreSQL
> versions and its forks. This is gonna be a lot of work and I'll be
> happy if I can finish it before we celebrate the 30th anniversay of
> Stonebraker launching his Post-Ingres project ;-)
>
[...........]


Hello Damien

Sometime ago I did something similar to this. It is updated up to
9.1.3, I will try to update it with the last versions today.

Source:
https://github.com/rafaelma/postgresql-timeline

Check the result here:
http://www.postgresql.org.es/postgresql-timeline/

I did also something similar for *all* RDBMS since the 70', where
postgreSQL is included. This is work in progress and I am sure a lot
has to be adjusted.

Source:
https://github.com/rafaelma/rdbms-timeline

Check the result here:
http://www.postgresql.org.es/rdbms-timeline/

regards,
- --
 Rafael Martinez Guerrero
 Center for Information Technology
 University of Oslo, Norway

 PGP Public Key: http://folk.uio.no/rafael/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlI5W+MACgkQBhuKQurGihSWJwCgkAWNuZ3775XYpjN3t1BOnLbB
VRIAmwVTZvhcEWTpqGNozixEkGxEX/Y+
=PbHe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le 18/09/2013 01:18, Darren Duncan a écrit :
> On 2013.09.17 3:12 PM, damien clochard wrote:
>> https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png
>>
>>
>>
>>
I am correct ? Did I miss something ?
>
> Postgres 8.2 is missing; you went from 8.1 to 8.3. -- Darren
> Duncan
>

Fixed.

Thank you :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlI5XzQACgkQ8cBlsngu+xbK4QCgmRXeT1l1rOp7ZhvojSy8kaBp
QOYAn3jgFNXnp28ycuLQQ1cYW14cVSNi
=lrQ5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Hello Damien
>
> Sometime ago I did something similar to this. It is updated up to
> 9.1.3, I will try to update it with the last versions today.
>
> Source: https://github.com/rafaelma/postgresql-timeline
>
> Check the result here:
> http://www.postgresql.org.es/postgresql-timeline/
>
> I did also something similar for *all* RDBMS since the 70', where
> postgreSQL is included. This is work in progress and I am sure a
> lot has to be adjusted.
>
> Source: https://github.com/rafaelma/rdbms-timeline
>
> Check the result here:
> http://www.postgresql.org.es/rdbms-timeline/
>

Wow this is great ! Your timeline is clear and really complete. What
tool did you use to create this ?

I think your work deserves more visibility. You should upload this to
the PostgreSQL wiki at least.

Anyway my goal is to focus on the PostgreSQL family tree and
illustrate the links between the "official branch" and its numerous
forks such as Amazon Redshift for example.

The page below is a starting point but we need to update it and gather
more information.
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_derived_databases

Are you interested in working with me on this ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlI5YhoACgkQ8cBlsngu+xa1bQCdE21zRqrpTPB4hHUjuu9ZuYsO
KHgAoJZvT/ppZberML6rb/LbEb56e4+o
=f4ys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 2013.09.18 12:53 AM, Rafael Martinez wrote:
> I did also something similar for *all* RDBMS since the 70', where
> postgreSQL is included. This is work in progress and I am sure a lot
> has to be adjusted.
>
> Source:
> https://github.com/rafaelma/rdbms-timeline
>
> Check the result here:
> http://www.postgresql.org.es/rdbms-timeline/

I find it interesting from this that there seem to be exactly 2 oldest families
of RDBMS by a wide margin, that being the Ingres family and the IBM System R
family.  I might have thought that there would be more early independent starts,
or just 1 (System R), but exactly 2 was a surprise. -- Darren Duncan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/18/2013 10:19 AM, damien clochard wrote:

Hei

[...........]
>
> Wow this is great ! Your timeline is clear and really complete.
> What tool did you use to create this ?
>

I use Graphviz to generate the SVG and PNG versions of the
diagram.

> I think your work deserves more visibility. You should upload this
> to the PostgreSQL wiki at least.
>

I will see what I can do. I have not edited the PostgreSQL wiki before.

> Anyway my goal is to focus on the PostgreSQL family tree and
> illustrate the links between the "official branch" and its
> numerous forks such as Amazon Redshift for example.
>
> The page below is a starting point but we need to update it and
> gather more information.
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_derived_databases
>
> Are you interested in working with me on this ?
>

I see, yes I am interested. I can also use the information we find for
the PostgreSQL family tree in the general rdbms-timeline.

We need to find out when the different forks happened, and the main
versions with release dates for every fork.

When do you want to be finish with this?

There is not much information out there about this. The information I
collected for the rdbms-timeline was all over the internet and it was
incomplete in many ways. A lot of gaps in the information that we can
find out there.

regards,
- --
 Rafael Martinez Guerrero
 Center for Information Technology
 University of Oslo, Norway

 PGP Public Key: http://folk.uio.no/rafael/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlI5gnEACgkQBhuKQurGihRDRACfbMJCMjssrAGIdI0tZ1d84Ph6
txEAoJ9We6cgjBSpLm1j9SG+krTJ1nSo
=3DmV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09/18/2013 11:01 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> On 2013.09.18 12:53 AM, Rafael Martinez wrote:
>> Source: https://github.com/rafaelma/rdbms-timeline
>>
>> Check the result here:
>> http://www.postgresql.org.es/rdbms-timeline/
>
> I find it interesting from this that there seem to be exactly 2
> oldest families of RDBMS by a wide margin, that being the Ingres
> family and the IBM System R family.  I might have thought that
> there would be more early independent starts, or just 1 (System R),
> but exactly 2 was a surprise. -- Darren Duncan
>

Hello Darren

The information I collected for the rdbms-timeline was all over the
internet and it was incomplete in many ways. A lot of gaps in the
information that I found out there. I cannot guarantee there were no
more independent starts.

This timeline is incomplete but I think is a good start.

regards,
- --
 Rafael Martinez Guerrero
 Center for Information Technology
 University of Oslo, Norway

 PGP Public Key: http://folk.uio.no/rafael/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlI5hDcACgkQBhuKQurGihSeEwCdFqoC7OtC4ulRGNr927pGDwHV
5iUAnRzWxxY/MC4Axgqg43m1wbhcU5OQ
=xkvu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Damien,

This looks like fun!

I'm not necessarily comfortable with an unqualified link from Ingres to
Postgres; can you make it a dotted line or something?  The reason I say
this is that Stonebraker was quite firm that there was no code re-use
from Ingres to Postgres, since he was legally prevented from such copying.

Link to my presentation Elephant Roads, which goes over a bunch of the
commercial forks as of 2009:

http://de.slideshare.net/pgconf/elephant-roads-a-tour-of-postgres-forks

Of course, there's been more since then.

And some earlier ones which I didn't know about, like mSQL (and, by
extension, MySQL).

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

On 09/18/2013 11:31 AM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
> Where are the references that Vertica is sort-of a PG fork and that
> Paraccel is a PG fork? Quick searches of the interweb finds claims that
> they are not. Not sure you need to bring doubt to the rest of the details
> in an excellent slide deck.

That depends on your definition of "fork".  There are things which are
forks which are 90% community Postgres code, and things which are 30%
Postgres code.  What percentage makes something a fork, and what
doesn't, and why?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

On 09/18/2013 12:25 PM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
> The sources I listed claim that Paraccel used the PG optimizer in an early
> release and uses no PG code today. Another source states that Vertica has
> no PG code. Why do you describe these as forks?

A quick test demonstrates pretty clearly that Vertica is using a forked
version of psql as its client, at least.  Given this use of Pg code,
it's fairly likely that there's PG code elsewhere as well; to date,
Stonebraker has reused some Postgres code in every one of his projects.

And the Paraccel engineers say differently than that article does.
Possible management has an issue with admitting the amount they owe to
Postgres, given that they've never contributed to the project.  At lease
Netezza was honest about it (as were Aster and Greenplum).

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

Rafael,

Minor correction: Greenplum forked off of 8.1, not 7.3.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 03:09:52PM -0500, Josh Berkus wrote:
> A quick test demonstrates pretty clearly that Vertica is using a forked
> version of psql as its client, at least.  Given this use of Pg code,
> it's fairly likely that there's PG code elsewhere as well; to date,
> Stonebraker has reused some Postgres code in every one of his projects.

Last I heard, they were using only the Postgres parser and query
rewriter. The client code (psql, ODBC libraries, etc) used to be based
on Postgres too -- I'd gotten the impression that was no longer the
case, but I might be mistaken about that.

Dan

--
Dan R. K. Ports                UW CSE                http://drkp.net/

Le 18/09/2013 18:14, Josh Berkus a écrit :
> Damien,
>
> This looks like fun!
>
> I'm not necessarily comfortable with an unqualified link from Ingres to
> Postgres; can you make it a dotted line or something?  The reason I say
> this is that Stonebraker was quite firm that there was no code re-use
> from Ingres to Postgres, since he was legally prevented from such copying.
>

Yes you're right. I need to define different types of arrows... Or maybe
just remove Ingres out of the picture :)

> Link to my presentation Elephant Roads, which goes over a bunch of the
> commercial forks as of 2009:
>
> http://de.slideshare.net/pgconf/elephant-roads-a-tour-of-postgres-forks
>

Great presentation !

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> That depends on your definition of "fork".
By playing it picky... Child project uses as a base state a given
commit from its parent.
--
Michael

On 09/21/2013 05:39 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> That depends on your definition of "fork".
> By playing it picky... Child project uses as a base state a given
> commit from its parent.

Problem is, we don't have that information, at least not for Vertica;
did they start out with new code and just use the PostgreSQL
parser/client, or did they start as a fork?

I happen to know that Paraccel *did* start out as a fork of Postgres.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

Hi all,

I've prepared a release timeline for the PostgreSQL Wikipedia
article[1,2], from 1995 to present. It was prepared using MediaWiki's
EasyTimeline Perl utility[3]. I think the docs say it can output SVG
too, but I've only used the MediaWiki built-in. Regardless, it's free
for anyone to use and/or modify.

-Mike

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostgreSQL
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Timeline_PostgreSQL
[3] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax

Le 04/10/2013 11:21, Mike Toews a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> I've prepared a release timeline for the PostgreSQL Wikipedia
> article[1,2], from 1995 to present. It was prepared using MediaWiki's
> EasyTimeline Perl utility[3]. I think the docs say it can output SVG
> too, but I've only used the MediaWiki built-in. Regardless, it's free
> for anyone to use and/or modify.
>

Nice !

I've updated the timeline to add the EOL dates of the currently
supported versions. It gives a better understanding of the release
cycle, I think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Timeline_PostgreSQL

Feel free to revert/modify my changes if needed

Maybe we could link this timeline on the official website ?
Best place would be the page about versioning policy :

http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/


--
Damien

On 5 October 2013 06:27, damien clochard <damien@dalibo.info> wrote:
> I've updated the timeline to add the EOL dates of the currently
> supported versions. It gives a better understanding of the release
> cycle, I think.

Super, thanks. The expected EOLs are useful, and I've improved on this
a bit more.

I was also considering the early end of the cycle with alpha/beta
releases. However, these dates are not well recorded (to my knowledge,
at least), so it would take hours of rifling through mail lists to
collect this data. If this is easy to extract, fantastic, otherwise it
sounds too daunting to include.

-Mike

Also, I picked up on two EOL date errors from
http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/

Version | Current minor | EOL date
8.1 | 8.1.23 | November 2010
7.3 | 7.3.21 | November 2007

But 8.1.23 was released 2010-12-16, and 7.3.21 was released
2008-01-07. It looks like these releases were supported up to at least
December 2010, and January 2008, respectively.

-Mike

On 10/04/2013 10:26 PM, Mike Toews wrote:
> Also, I picked up on two EOL date errors from
> http://www.postgresql.org/support/versioning/
>
> Version | Current minor | EOL date
> 8.1 | 8.1.23 | November 2010
> 7.3 | 7.3.21 | November 2007
>
> But 8.1.23 was released 2010-12-16, and 7.3.21 was released
> 2008-01-07. It looks like these releases were supported up to at least
> December 2010, and January 2008, respectively.

That's not a history document, it's a policy of "how long we promise to
release update releases".  In the past, when update releases were a lot
more erratic in frequency, that sometimes meant that the "last" update
came out a few months after the official EOL date.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

Hi,

I think I'm almost finished with the "PostgreSQL forks timeline".

Here's the current status :
https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png

There's still a lot of design work to do on the colors, the arrows, etc.
But I think most of the information is there !

Of course there's probably many errors ! Especially it's hard to to tell
if a project is dead or just inactive... So If you're a project leader
and I marked that your software was halted, please forgive me !  I did
my best to find information on the interweb but I'm sure I missed a few
forks and some dates... If you have any correction to make please edit
directly this page :

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_derived_databases

And I will report the changes to the timeline.


Overall I learned a lot doing this timeline ! Here's a few comments that
came to my mind during the process :

* It's very easy to create a PostgreSQL fork
* It's very hard to maintain a PostgreSQL fork
* PG 8.0 killed the windows ports
* PG 9.0 killed almost all the clustering projects
* What will PG 10.0 kill ? BI ? :)
* Proprietary forks seem to be more resilient (not sure why)


Once I'll have cleaned this up, maybe I'll try to make a poster out of it.

Regards,

--
Damien

Are interested in adding pgpool-II?

I'm not sure what "PostgreSQL forks" actually means but if you have
PostgresForest in your list, you could consider adding pgpool-II as
well since both PostgresForest and pgpool-II do not touch PostgreSQL
code (actually pgpool-II borrows part of PostgreSQL code).
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

> Hi,
>
> I think I'm almost finished with the "PostgreSQL forks timeline".
>
> Here's the current status :
> https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png
>
> There's still a lot of design work to do on the colors, the arrows, etc.
> But I think most of the information is there !
>
> Of course there's probably many errors ! Especially it's hard to to tell
> if a project is dead or just inactive... So If you're a project leader
> and I marked that your software was halted, please forgive me !  I did
> my best to find information on the interweb but I'm sure I missed a few
> forks and some dates... If you have any correction to make please edit
> directly this page :
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_derived_databases
>
> And I will report the changes to the timeline.
>
>
> Overall I learned a lot doing this timeline ! Here's a few comments that
> came to my mind during the process :
>
> * It's very easy to create a PostgreSQL fork
> * It's very hard to maintain a PostgreSQL fork
> * PG 8.0 killed the windows ports
> * PG 9.0 killed almost all the clustering projects
> * What will PG 10.0 kill ? BI ? :)
> * Proprietary forks seem to be more resilient (not sure why)
>
>
> Once I'll have cleaned this up, maybe I'll try to make a poster out of it.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Damien
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

> Hi,
>
> I think I'm almost finished with the "PostgreSQL forks timeline".
>
> Here's the current status :
> https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png
>
> There's still a lot of design work to do on the colors, the arrows, etc.
> But I think most of the information is there !
>
> Of course there's probably many errors ! Especially it's hard to to tell
> if a project is dead or just inactive... So If you're a project leader
> and I marked that your software was halted, please forgive me !  I did
> my best to find information on the interweb but I'm sure I missed a few
> forks and some dates... If you have any correction to make please edit
> directly this page :
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_derived_databases
>
> And I will report the changes to the timeline.

I have edited "PowerGres" and "PowerGres Plus" entry.
Could you please check it out?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Chris Travers <chris.travers@gmail.com> wrote:
> Postgres-XC probably did more than anything else to kill a lot of the
> clustering projects.  Why use GridSQL when you can use Postgres-XC?
Bookmarking this one :)

Thanks,
--
Michael

Le 10/10/2013 08:14, Tatsuo Ishii a écrit :
> Are interested in adding pgpool-II?
>
> I'm not sure what "PostgreSQL forks" actually means but if you have
> PostgresForest in your list, you could consider adding pgpool-II as
> well since both PostgresForest and pgpool-II do not touch PostgreSQL
> code (actually pgpool-II borrows part of PostgreSQL code).
>

Hi Tatsuo,

I build this timeline with a very large definition. I call "PostgreSQL
forks" anything that contains or used to contain some code from the
PostgreSQL branch. Thus pgPool-II is relevant in this list. I missed it,
sorry.

About Postgres Forest, I never heard of this project before and I
struglled to find information about it.

I've updated the timeline and wiki page :

https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_derived_databases

I've also zoomed in to cover only the 1995-2013 era which is where most
forks happened obviously.

Regards,

--
Damien

Le 10/10/2013 00:13, damien clochard a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I think I'm almost finished with the "PostgreSQL forks timeline".
>
> Here's the current status :
> https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png
>
> [...]
>
> Overall I learned a lot doing this timeline ! Here's a few comments that
> came to my mind during the process :
>

Another thing that strikes me is that the number of new forks is
decreasing.

- 7.x : 8 new forks (Telegraph, Netezza,...)
- 8.x : 14 new forks (Greenplum, ParAccel, HadoopDB,...)
- 9.x : 2 new forks (Postgres-XC,...)

Maybe it's just me that missed some new projects but what if I didn't ?

I can't find an explanation for this... With PostgreSQL gaining new
users everyday and all the awesome features the 9.x versions, I expected
to see more new projects launched in the past 3 years.

Maybe the new forks remain hidden. With cloud based services, you don't
have to the code you're running. Amazon claims that RedShift is based on
PostgreSQL 8.0 but they didn't have to. I guess there's a lot of Cloud
companies out there runing parts of PostgreSQL code and not talking
about it.

Or maybe it's because PostgreSQL extensibility has improved and people
don't need to create a new banches anymore. They just put their code in
an extension. PostGIS would be an example of that.

The irony is that the postgres page on github has currently 219 "forks"
:-) But at the end of the day, nothing really emerge from that.

Anyway if the number of new forks is really decreasing, I'm not sure
that's good news for us...

Damien,

> Maybe it's just me that missed some new projects but what if I didn't ?

Translattice, which is a fork of Postgres-R (with remerged code from
9.1) is currently missing from the chart.  It starts in 2008 and is ongoing.

Also, HadoopDB should fork into Hadapt in 2010.

> I can't find an explanation for this... With PostgreSQL gaining new
> users everyday and all the awesome features the 9.x versions, I expected
> to see more new projects launched in the past 3 years.

Five things:
1) the "transaction visibility" issue: most forks are startups, which
are not publically announced until years after they forked.

2) with additional PG features, there is less need to fork.

3) given the number of forks which are still a going concern, there is
less need for *new* forks.

4) the inceased acceptance of OSS in business environments has made
closed-source forking less attractive

5) we've lost some of the innovation to the new databases.  Unfortunate,
but inevitable.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

Damien,

> Le 10/10/2013 08:14, Tatsuo Ishii a écrit :
>> Are interested in adding pgpool-II?
>>
>> I'm not sure what "PostgreSQL forks" actually means but if you have
>> PostgresForest in your list, you could consider adding pgpool-II as
>> well since both PostgresForest and pgpool-II do not touch PostgreSQL
>> code (actually pgpool-II borrows part of PostgreSQL code).
>>
>
> Hi Tatsuo,
>
> I build this timeline with a very large definition. I call "PostgreSQL
> forks" anything that contains or used to contain some code from the
> PostgreSQL branch. Thus pgPool-II is relevant in this list. I missed it,
> sorry.

Thank you very much for your prompt response.

Could you please PowerGres part?

"PowerGres" and "PoweGres Plus" are different products, like
"EnterpriseDB Postgres Plus Advanced Server" and "EnterpriseDB
Postgres Plus" are different. So you might consider to add "PowerGres"
timeline in addition to "PowerGres Plus" timeline.

> About Postgres Forest, I never heard of this project before and I
> struglled to find information about it.
>
> I've updated the timeline and wiki page :
>
> https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgreSQL_derived_databases
>
> I've also zoomed in to cover only the 1995-2013 era which is where most
> forks happened obviously.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Damien
>

> About Postgres Forest, I never heard of this project before and I
> struglled to find information about it.

Mostly because it's dead now, and was always Japanese.  It was a
predecessor to things like ExtenDB and Continuent.

However, I put it on my list of forks because I was under the impression
that PostgresForest actually involved forking the backend code of
PostgreSQL.  Tatsuo is saying that it didn't, and he would know better
than me.

On that basis, I personally wouldn't include Forest or pgPool in the
list of forks, because they are tools which go on top of mainstream
PostgreSQL, and if we start listing tools there's no finishing it.

I'm unclear on what the difference between "Business Intelligence" and
"Big Data" forks is.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

> About Postgres Forest, I never heard of this project before and I
> struglled to find information about it.

Here is an English information:

http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PostgresForest

From what I read from http://sourceforge.jp/projects/postgresforest/
(Japanese only), It's a modified version of JDBC driver. The lastest
version of source was released on 2010/3/29.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> However, I put it on my list of forks because I was under the impression
> that PostgresForest actually involved forking the backend code of
> PostgreSQL.
PostgresForest did not have any backend code at all.
--
Michael

Le 11/10/2013 19:33, Josh Berkus a écrit :
>
>> About Postgres Forest, I never heard of this project before and I
>> struglled to find information about it.
>
> Mostly because it's dead now, and was always Japanese.  It was a
> predecessor to things like ExtenDB and Continuent.
>
> However, I put it on my list of forks because I was under the impression
> that PostgresForest actually involved forking the backend code of
> PostgreSQL.  Tatsuo is saying that it didn't, and he would know better
> than me.
>
> On that basis, I personally wouldn't include Forest or pgPool in the
> list of forks, because they are tools which go on top of mainstream
> PostgreSQL, and if we start listing tools there's no finishing it.
>

ok it makes sense.

I've updated the timeline :
https://raw.github.com/daamien/artwork/master/inkscape/PostgreSQL_timeline/timeline_postgresql.png

But I can't log to the wiki page right now to update it.



> I'm unclear on what the difference between "Business Intelligence" and
> "Big Data" forks is.
>

A degree of magnitude I guess. In mind the software in the BI section
can handle several terabytes while the ones in the Big Data section can
handle several hundreds of terabytes. But I must admit it's a loose
definition :-)  I wanted to make a difference between stuff like Yahoo
everest and the "more classic" MPP implementations.

But of course I can merge everything in a single "Big Data / BI" section
and avoid a useless flame war :)

With all the latest changes, the whole design needs to be refreshed anyway.