Open source databases '60 per cent cheaper'
At leas Enterprise DB is mentioned:
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2168971/open-source-databases-slice
--
Med venlig hilsen
Kaare Rasmussen, Jasonic
Jasonic Telefon: +45 3816 2582
Nordre Fasanvej 12
2000 Frederiksberg Email: kaare@jasonic.dk
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:45 +0100, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
At leas Enterprise DB is mentioned:
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2168971/open-source-databases-slice
Too bad EnterpriseDB isn't Open Source.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:58:22AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:45 +0100, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
At leas Enterprise DB is mentioned:
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2168971/open-source-databases-slice
Too bad EnterpriseDB isn't Open Source.
Too bad, also, that the word "PostgreSQL" doesn't appear anywhere in
that article.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
Too bad, also, that the word "PostgreSQL" doesn't appear anywhere in
that article.
OK, so, this article does a little better:
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3644946
--
Med venlig hilsen
Kaare Rasmussen, Jasonic
Jasonic Telefon: +45 3816 2582
Nordre Fasanvej 12
2000 Frederiksberg Email: kaare@jasonic.dk
David Fetter wrote:
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 07:58:22AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 16:45 +0100, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
At leas Enterprise DB is mentioned:
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2168971/open-source-databases-slice
Too bad EnterpriseDB isn't Open Source.
Too bad, also, that the word "PostgreSQL" doesn't appear anywhere in
that article.
I know EnterpriseDB is trying to have PostgreSQL mentioned in all their
articles, but I supposed becuase it is an article that includes all open
source databases (or based on open source databases like EnterpriseDB),
it wasn't possible.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
I know EnterpriseDB is trying to have PostgreSQL mentioned in all their
articles, but I supposed becuase it is an article that includes all open
source databases (or based on open source databases like EnterpriseDB),
it wasn't possible.
Honestly, I applaud the EnterpriseDB PR machine, and there is no reason
they should have to provide a mention to PostgreSQL. If they choose to,
I thank them as a community member. If not, it is their product and I
wish them the best.
However what does need to stop is the false statement that EnterpriseDB
is Open Source.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I know EnterpriseDB is trying to have PostgreSQL mentioned in all their
articles, but I supposed because it is an article that includes all open
source databases (or based on open source databases like EnterpriseDB),
it wasn't possible.Honestly, I applaud the EnterpriseDB PR machine, and there is no reason
they should have to provide a mention to PostgreSQL. If they choose to,
I thank them as a community member. If not, it is their product and I
wish them the best.
EnterpriseDB tries to get PostgreSQL mentioned if possible. There are
strong ethical and business reasons to do that.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 15:56 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I know EnterpriseDB is trying to have PostgreSQL mentioned in all their
articles, but I supposed because it is an article that includes all open
source databases (or based on open source databases like EnterpriseDB),
it wasn't possible.Honestly, I applaud the EnterpriseDB PR machine, and there is no reason
they should have to provide a mention to PostgreSQL. If they choose to,
I thank them as a community member. If not, it is their product and I
wish them the best.EnterpriseDB tries to get PostgreSQL mentioned if possible. There are
strong ethical and business reasons to do that.
I am not suggesting they don't. I was just saying from my perspective I
didn't have a problem if they did, or didn't. My only complaint is being
addressed off list :)
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However what does need to stop is the false statement that EnterpriseDB
is Open Source.
We need to differentiate between statements made by journalists and
claims made by companies.
Anyway, I'm very interested in getting Synchronous Replication into
PostgreSQL 8.3. Can I gauge your interest in making Mammoth Replicator
Open Source to assist with that project? I'd be very happy to work with
you in an open manner on that.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However what does need to stop is the false statement that EnterpriseDB
is Open Source.We need to differentiate between statements made by journalists and
claims made by companies.Anyway, I'm very interested in getting Synchronous Replication into
PostgreSQL 8.3. Can I gauge your interest in making Mammoth Replicator
Open Source to assist with that project? I'd be very happy to work with
you in an open manner on that.
Mammoth Replicator is not synchronous anyway ...
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 10:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However what does need to stop is the false statement that EnterpriseDB
is Open Source.We need to differentiate between statements made by journalists and
claims made by companies.Anyway, I'm very interested in getting Synchronous Replication into
PostgreSQL 8.3. Can I gauge your interest in making Mammoth Replicator
Open Source to assist with that project? I'd be very happy to work with
you in an open manner on that.Mammoth Replicator is not synchronous anyway ...
That's a shame. I thought we might be able get a head start in that way.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Hi,
Simon Riggs wrote:
Mammoth Replicator is not synchronous anyway ...
That's a shame. I thought we might be able get a head start in that way.
Huh? Why should that be a shame? Do you have anything better to propose?
Maybe you can get away with Sequoia? Or support my efforts with Postgres-R?
Regards
Markus
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:28 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Mammoth Replicator is not synchronous anyway ...
That's a shame. I thought we might be able get a head start in that way.
Huh? Why should that be a shame?
Because I wanted it to be synchronous and it is not...
Do you have anything better to propose?
On -hackers, I think, but not yet.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:21 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 15:28 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Mammoth Replicator is not synchronous anyway ...
That's a shame. I thought we might be able get a head start in that way.
Huh? Why should that be a shame?
Because I wanted it to be synchronous and it is not...
In theory, it wouldn't be too difficult (especially once 1.8 is done) to
make Replicator Synchronous. We haven't worked out all the gory details
but it is certainly plausible.
But to be honest, the demand for Synchronous is far less than the hype.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Do you have anything better to propose?
On -hackers, I think, but not yet.
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 10:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However what does need to stop is the false statement that EnterpriseDB
is Open Source.We need to differentiate between statements made by journalists and
claims made by companies.Anyway, I'm very interested in getting Synchronous Replication into
PostgreSQL 8.3. Can I gauge your interest in making Mammoth Replicator
Open Source to assist with that project? I'd be very happy to work with
you in an open manner on that.Mammoth Replicator is not synchronous anyway ...
That's a shame. I thought we might be able get a head start in that way.
Have you looked at PGCluster? - Synchronous multi master replication
It is listed at pgFoundry
--
Shane Ambler
pgSQL@007Marketing.com
Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 03:30 +1030, Shane Ambler wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 10:44 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:21 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
However what does need to stop is the false statement that EnterpriseDB
is Open Source.We need to differentiate between statements made by journalists and
claims made by companies.Anyway, I'm very interested in getting Synchronous Replication into
PostgreSQL 8.3.
On a side note to this.. you said *into*.. my understanding is the
policy of the community is *no* replication is in core.
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Hi,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On a side note to this.. you said *into*.. my understanding is the
policy of the community is *no* replication is in core.
I don't think that policy is written in stone. But for a replication
solution to go into core, it should better cover a lot of use cases,
i.e. for sure sync *and* async replication.
Regards
Markus
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 18:21 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Hi,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On a side note to this.. you said *into*.. my understanding is the
policy of the community is *no* replication is in core.I don't think that policy is written in stone. But for a replication
solution to go into core, it should better cover a lot of use cases,
i.e. for sure sync *and* async replication.
Perhaps we should re-read the archives. It has been a pretty solid
policy for *years* and it comes up before every release and it always
comes back to:
PostgreSQL doesn't ship a integrated replication solution, BECAUSE not
any one replication solution can fit the need.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Regards
Markus
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Hi,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
PostgreSQL doesn't ship a integrated replication solution, BECAUSE not
any one replication solution can fit the need.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Please do not mix cause and effect: no replication solution got into
core because none fit all the needs. It's not that we have a policy
stating that we don't want any replication solution in core. What could
possibly be the reasons for such a policy?
Regards
Markus
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 09:30 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 18:21 +0100, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
Hi,
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
On a side note to this.. you said *into*.. my understanding is the
policy of the community is *no* replication is in core.I don't think that policy is written in stone. But for a replication
solution to go into core, it should better cover a lot of use cases,
i.e. for sure sync *and* async replication.Perhaps we should re-read the archives. It has been a pretty solid
policy for *years* and it comes up before every release and it always
comes back to:PostgreSQL doesn't ship a integrated replication solution, BECAUSE not
any one replication solution can fit the need.
I always got the impression that it had more to do with whether it
needed to be in core to work or not.
If there is some great replication solution that a lot of people need
and it will only work with a change to core, that change might make it
in.
However, there may not be nifty syntax changes nor GUCs in core to
support a specific implementation of a replicator.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
