Thread: [Fwd: Re: First Major Open Source Database]
[Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.] -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 -------- Original Message -------- From: Doc Searls <doc@searls.com> Subject: Re: First Major Open Source Database To: Jason Kroll <hyena@ssc.com> CC: mlr@ssc.com, lamar.owen@wgcr.org To move this along quickly, I suggest this as a sidebar we can run as a table in the piece at http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/conversations/010.html ... ---------------- Credit where due Since this interview went up, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Some readers, however, have urged us to give full credit to the other open source databases that are already out there and have prior claims to the "major" label. The strongest urgings have come from PostgreSQL developers, who have provided us with some points and links that we are happy to pass along here. The points: - University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct ancestor of PostgreSQL. - PostgreSQL is at version 6.5.3, and has been open source since the beginning. "The development is very open, the developers friendly, and the code is improving by leaps and bounds," writes Lamar Owen, RPM Package Maintainer with the PostgreSQL Global Development Group. He says "PostgreSQL has shipped with RedHat Linux as part of the 'Official Boxed Set' since RedHat 5.0." He also recommends comparing RDBMSes by the "ACID criteria." These are: "Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability." - Hacking database code is not lightweight work. "Kernel hacking is not a walk in the park, nor is GUI hacking, library hacking, or any other tool hacking," Owen says, "But, database hacking is a league unto itself....The learning curve for doing back-end database development is the steepest of any project of which I am aware." Here are two useful links: - The freshmeat.net appindex entry for databases <http://www.freshmeat.net/appindex/daemons/database.html> - PostgreSQL.org's comparison chart <http://www.postgresql.org> Alert us to more and we'll put them here. -- Doc Searls ------------- Here is the same thing, in HTML: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> <html> <head> <title>Credit Where Due</title></head> <body> <h2>Credit where due</h2> <p>Since this interview went up, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Some readers, however, have urged us to give full credit to the other open source databases that are already out there and have prior claims to the "major" label. The strongest urgings have come from PostgreSQL developers, who have provided us with some points and links that we are happy to pass along here.</p> <p>The points:</p> <p>— University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct ancestor of PostgreSQL.</p> <p>— PostgreSQL is at version 6.5.3, and has been open source since the beginning. "The development is very open, the developers friendly, and the code is improving by leaps and bounds," writes Lamar Owen, RPM Package Maintainer with the PostgreSQL Global Development Group. He says "PostgreSQL has shipped with RedHat Linux as part of the 'Official Boxed Set' since RedHat 5.0." He also recommends comparing RDBMSes by the "ACID criteria." These are: "Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability."</p> <p>— Hacking database code is not lightweight work. "Kernel hacking is not a walk in the park, nor is GUI hacking, library hacking, or any other tool hacking," Owen says, "But, database hacking is a league unto itself....The learning curve for doing back-end database development is the steepest of any project of which I am aware."</p> <p>Here are two useful links:</p> <ul> <li><a href="http:/www.freshmeat.net/ppindex/aemons/atabase.html">The freshmeat.net appindex entry for databases</a> <li><a href="http:/www.postgresql.org">PostgreSQL.org's comparison chart</a> </ul> <p>Alert us to more and we'll put themhere.</p> <p>— Doc Searls</body> </html> ---------- Does that work? If so, let's get it up. Doc, in the basement of Moscone, in the surreal Macworld where Apple still, amazingly, lives. ---------- Doc Searls Senior Editor, Linux Journal doc@ssc.com http://www.linuxjournal.com Office: 544 Oak Park Way, Emerald Hills, CA 94062-4038 Phone: (650) 361-1324 Cell: (206) 849-9586 Fax: (650) 361-1348 ----------
Sounds good to me ... On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > [Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source > Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you > think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.] > > -- > Lamar Owen > WGCR Internet Radio > 1 Peter 4:11 > > -------- Original Message -------- > From: Doc Searls <doc@searls.com> > Subject: Re: First Major Open Source Database > To: Jason Kroll <hyena@ssc.com> > CC: mlr@ssc.com, lamar.owen@wgcr.org > > To move this along quickly, I suggest this as a sidebar we can run as > a table in the piece at > http://www2.linuxjournal.com/articles/conversations/010.html ... > > ---------------- > > Credit where due > > Since this interview went up, the response has been overwhelmingly > positive. Some readers, however, have urged us to give full credit to > the other open source databases that are already out there and have > prior claims to the "major" label. The strongest urgings have come > from PostgreSQL developers, who have provided us with some points and > links that we are happy to pass along here. > > The points: > > - University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the > 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct > ancestor of PostgreSQL. > > - PostgreSQL is at version 6.5.3, and has been open source since the > beginning. "The development is very open, the developers friendly, > and the code is improving by leaps and bounds," writes Lamar Owen, > RPM Package Maintainer with the PostgreSQL Global Development Group. > He says "PostgreSQL has shipped with RedHat Linux as part of the > 'Official Boxed Set' since RedHat 5.0." He also recommends comparing > RDBMSes by the "ACID criteria." These are: "Atomicity, Consistency, > Isolation, Durability." > > - Hacking database code is not lightweight work. "Kernel hacking is > not a walk in the park, nor is GUI hacking, library hacking, or any > other tool hacking," Owen says, "But, database hacking is a league > unto itself....The learning curve for doing back-end database > development is the steepest of any project of which I am aware." > > Here are two useful links: > > - The freshmeat.net appindex entry for databases > <http://www.freshmeat.net/appindex/daemons/database.html> > > - PostgreSQL.org's comparison chart <http://www.postgresql.org> > > Alert us to more and we'll put them here. > > -- Doc Searls > > ------------- > > Here is the same thing, in HTML: > > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2 Final//EN"> > <html> > > <head> > <title>Credit Where Due</title> > </head> > > <body> > <h2>Credit where due</h2> > <p>Since this interview went up, the response has > been overwhelmingly positive. Some readers, however, have urged us to > give full credit to the other open source databases that are already > out there and have prior claims to the "major" label. The > strongest urgings have come from PostgreSQL developers, who have > provided us with some points and links that we are happy to pass > along here.</p> > <p>The points:</p> > <p>— University Ingres, developed starting in > 1977, qualifies for the 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. > Ingres is the direct ancestor of PostgreSQL.</p> > <p>— PostgreSQL is at version 6.5.3, and has > been open source since the beginning. "The development is very > open, the developers friendly, and the code is improving by leaps and > bounds," writes Lamar Owen, RPM Package Maintainer with the > PostgreSQL Global Development Group. He says "PostgreSQL has > shipped with RedHat Linux as part of the 'Official Boxed Set' since > RedHat 5.0." He also recommends comparing RDBMSes by the > "ACID criteria." These are: "Atomicity, Consistency, > Isolation, Durability."</p> > <p>— Hacking database code is not lightweight > work. "Kernel hacking is not a walk in the park, nor is GUI > hacking, library hacking, or any other tool hacking," Owen says, > "But, database hacking is a league unto itself....The learning > curve for doing back-end database development is the steepest of any > project of which I am aware."</p> > <p>Here are two useful links:</p> > <ul> > <li><a > href="http:/www.freshmeat.net/ppindex/aemons/atabase.html">The > freshmeat.net appindex entry for databases</a> > <li><a > href="http:/www.postgresql.org">PostgreSQL.org's comparison chart</a> > </ul> > <p>Alert us to more and we'll put them here.</p> > <p>— Doc Searls > </body> > > </html> > > > > ---------- > > Does that work? If so, let's get it up. > > Doc, in the basement of Moscone, in the surreal Macworld where Apple > still, amazingly, lives. > > ---------- > Doc Searls > Senior Editor, Linux Journal > doc@ssc.com > http://www.linuxjournal.com > Office: 544 Oak Park Way, Emerald Hills, CA 94062-4038 > Phone: (650) 361-1324 Cell: (206) 849-9586 Fax: (650) 361-1348 > ---------- > > ************ > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Sounds good to me ... > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > [Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source > > Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you > > think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.] Ok, I'm replying to him with a 'go'. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: First Major Open Source Database]
From
darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Date:
Thus spake Lamar Owen
> [Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source
> Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you
> think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.]
> [...]
> - University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the
> 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct
> ancestor of PostgreSQL.
Not that it is so important but I think that Postgres was a different
project by the same person (Dr. Micheal Stonebraker) so it is probably
more accurate to call them siblings.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote: > > Thus spake Lamar Owen > > [Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source > > Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you > > think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.] > > [...] > > - University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the > > 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct > > ancestor of PostgreSQL. > > Not that it is so important but I think that Postgres was a different > project by the same person (Dr. Micheal Stonebraker) so it is probably > more accurate to call them siblings. Hmmmm... You may be right -- I wasn't there (in 1987 I was still a sophomore in college, and was still hacking my old Z80-based computer). I was quoting Bruce's History of PostgreSQL document, which states: "PostgreSQL began as Ingres, developed at the University of California at Berkeley(1977-1985). The Ingres code was taken and enhanced by Relational Technologies/Ingres Corporation, which produced one of the first commercially successful relational database servers. (Ingres Corp. was later purchased by Computer Associates.) Also at Berkeley, Michael Stonebraker lead a team to develop an object-relational database server called Postgres(1986-1994). " Hmmm... On second read, that seems ambiguous. Does anyone know if the first Postgres codebase included any Ingres code (the criterion for 'ancestry')? Or was Postgres (a play on words anyway -- Ingres used the QUEL language, others started using SEQUEL (later SQL), Postgres, being different, used POSTQUEL) a complete rewrite from the ground up? Not that it is terribly important, but I am interested in accuracy. The Official Documentation doesn't even mention Ingres in its Short History chapter. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote:
>
> Thus spake Lamar Owen
> > [Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source
> > Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you
> > think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.]
> > [...]
> > - University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the
> > 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct
> > ancestor of PostgreSQL.
>
> Not that it is so important but I think that Postgres was a different
> project by the same person (Dr. Micheal Stonebraker) so it is probably
> more accurate to call them siblings.
AFAIK it was a different project that built heavily on Ingres (and Postgres's
query language PostQUEL was an extended version of (University)Ingres' QUEL.
Both were later commercially extended
+ -UniversityIngres(with QUEL) --> Ingres(withSQL)|\- Postgres(PostQuel) -+-> Illustra(SQL) -> InformixUDB(SQL)
\-> Postgres95(SQL) -> PostgreSQL(SQL)
So I think that Ancestor is more accurate than Sibling.
------------
Hannu
> Thus spake Lamar Owen > > [Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source > > Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you > > think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.] > > [...] > > - University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the > > 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct > > ancestor of PostgreSQL. > > Not that it is so important but I think that Postgres was a different > project by the same person (Dr. Micheal Stonebraker) so it is probably > more accurate to call them siblings. I am told _no_ Ingres code went into Postgres. It was a complete rewrite. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote: > > > > Thus spake Lamar Owen > > > [Ok, I've been in touch with the author of the 'First Major Open Source > > > Database' article. Here's what he wants to do. Let me know what you > > > think, and correct any misinformation I may have fed him.] > > > [...] > > > - University Ingres, developed starting in 1977, qualifies for the > > > 'First Major Open Source Database' honor. Ingres is the direct > > > ancestor of PostgreSQL. > > > > Not that it is so important but I think that Postgres was a different > > project by the same person (Dr. Micheal Stonebraker) so it is probably > > more accurate to call them siblings. > > Hmmmm... You may be right -- I wasn't there (in 1987 I was still a > sophomore in college, and was still hacking my old Z80-based computer). > I was quoting Bruce's History of PostgreSQL document, which states: > "PostgreSQL began as Ingres, developed at the University of California > at > Berkeley(1977-1985). The Ingres code was taken and enhanced by > Relational Technologies/Ingres Corporation, which produced one of the > first commercially successful relational database servers. (Ingres > Corp. was later purchased by Computer Associates.) Also at Berkeley, > Michael Stonebraker lead a team to develop an object-relational database > server > called Postgres(1986-1994). " > > Hmmm... On second read, that seems ambiguous. Does anyone know if the > first Postgres codebase included any Ingres code (the criterion for > 'ancestry')? Or was Postgres (a play on words anyway -- Ingres used the > QUEL language, others started using SEQUEL (later SQL), Postgres, being > different, used POSTQUEL) a complete rewrite from the ground up? It was purposely ambiguous. It did not use any Ingres code, as told to me by Jolly, I think. My book has Ingres mentioned as an "ancestor" of Postgres. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Hmmm... On second read, that seems ambiguous. > It was purposely ambiguous. I was afraid of that. > It did not use any Ingres code, as told to me by Jolly, I think. My > book has Ingres mentioned as an "ancestor" of Postgres. I have e-mailed Doc again, asking him to remove the 'direct' in the line 'Ingres was the direct ancestor of PostgreSQL' -- direct implies, IMO, shared code. Thanks for clarifying, Bruce... -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [HACKERS] [Fwd: Re: First Major Open Source Database]
From
darcy@druid.net (D'Arcy J.M. Cain)
Date:
Thus spake Lamar Owen
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > It did not use any Ingres code, as told to me by Jolly, I think. My
> > book has Ingres mentioned as an "ancestor" of Postgres.
>
> I have e-mailed Doc again, asking him to remove the 'direct' in the line
> 'Ingres was the direct ancestor of PostgreSQL' -- direct implies, IMO,
> shared code. Thanks for clarifying, Bruce...
I still think that since there is no shared code you can't say that
Ingres was the parent to Postgres, more like an older brother. Guess
that makes Ingres PostgreSQL's great uncle. :-)
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.
On Fri, 7 Jan 2000, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> I still think that since there is no shared code you can't say that
> Ingres was the parent to Postgres, more like an older brother. Guess
> that makes Ingres PostgreSQL's great uncle. :-)
Stupid question...does it *really* matter? :)
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" wrote: > > I have e-mailed Doc again, asking him to remove the 'direct' in the line > > 'Ingres was the direct ancestor of PostgreSQL' -- direct implies, IMO, > > shared code. Thanks for clarifying, Bruce... > I still think that since there is no shared code you can't say that > Ingres was the parent to Postgres, more like an older brother. Guess > that makes Ingres PostgreSQL's great uncle. :-) ROTFL The guys at Linux Journal are very apologetic that they overlooked PostgreSQL -- if the consensus is to change from 'ancestor' to some other usage (maybe step-ancestor??), then they can do it -- it's not set in stone. I personally am comfortable with 'ancestor' in this usage -- there are instances of where a program was completely rewritten and only a version number change happened, even with no shared codebase (the webserver logfile analyzer 'analog' has had this happen more than once -- in particular, the code was completely rewritten from scratch between version 2.11 and 3.0. Analog 3.0 shares no code at all with analog 2.11 -- not necessarily the best software design, but, it's Steven's codebase to play with.). It's like the relationship between the CERN, NCSA, and Apache webservers. They will be at least giving credit where credit is due (like you said, it's not a major point). -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
> It did not use any Ingres code, as told to me by Jolly, I think. My
> book has Ingres mentioned as an "ancestor" of Postgres.
I suppose we could have figured this out ourselves, since Postgres was
originally written in Lisp, and afaik Ingres was always C or somesuch
traditional compiled-only code. We still see evidence of this in our
code tree with the way lists and parser nodes are handled.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> It did not use any Ingres code, as told to me by Jolly, I think. My
>> book has Ingres mentioned as an "ancestor" of Postgres.
> I suppose we could have figured this out ourselves, since Postgres was
> originally written in Lisp, and afaik Ingres was always C or somesuch
> traditional compiled-only code. We still see evidence of this in our
> code tree with the way lists and parser nodes are handled.
It's clear from both the comments and remnants of coding conventions
that the planner/optimizer was originally Lisp code, and was hand-
translated to C at some point in the dim mists of prehistory (early
1990s, possibly ;-)). That Lisp heritage is responsible for some of
the better things about the code, and also some of the worse things.
But I'm not sure I believe that *all* of the code was originally
Lisp. I've never heard of a Lisp interface for yacc-generated
parsers, for example. The parts of the executor I've looked at
don't seem nearly as Lispy as the parser/planner/optimizer, either.
So it seems possible that parts of Postgres were written afresh in
Lisp while other parts were lifted from an older C implementation.
</idle speculation>
Does anyone here still recall the origins of Postgres? I'm curious
to know more about the history of this beast.
regards, tom lane
I am CC'ing Jolly and Andrew on this. They may know the answer. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > >> It did not use any Ingres code, as told to me by Jolly, I think. My > >> book has Ingres mentioned as an "ancestor" of Postgres. > > > I suppose we could have figured this out ourselves, since Postgres was > > originally written in Lisp, and afaik Ingres was always C or somesuch > > traditional compiled-only code. We still see evidence of this in our > > code tree with the way lists and parser nodes are handled. > > It's clear from both the comments and remnants of coding conventions > that the planner/optimizer was originally Lisp code, and was hand- > translated to C at some point in the dim mists of prehistory (early > 1990s, possibly ;-)). That Lisp heritage is responsible for some of > the better things about the code, and also some of the worse things. > > But I'm not sure I believe that *all* of the code was originally > Lisp. I've never heard of a Lisp interface for yacc-generated > parsers, for example. The parts of the executor I've looked at > don't seem nearly as Lispy as the parser/planner/optimizer, either. > So it seems possible that parts of Postgres were written afresh in > Lisp while other parts were lifted from an older C implementation. > > </idle speculation> > > Does anyone here still recall the origins of Postgres? I'm curious > to know more about the history of this beast. > > regards, tom lane > > ************ > -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026