Alex Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It appears that casting to a char() causes spaces to be stripped (ignored)
> from the string:
mls=# select length('123 '::char(8));
length
3
(1 row)
> I'm not sure about anyone else, but I would personaly consider that a bug?
No, it's a feature,
It appears that casting to a char() causes spaces to be stripped (ignored) from the string:
mls=# select length('123 '::char(8));
length
3
(1 row)
mls=# select length('123 '::char(8)::varchar(8));
length
3
(1 row)
but:
mls=# select length('123 '::varchar(8
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Doug Quale wrote:
"Guy Rouillier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Doug Quale wrote:
# select 'a'::char(8) = 'a '::char(8);
?column?
--
t
(1 row)
Trailing blanks aren't significant in fixed-length strings, so the
question is whether Postgresql treats comparison of
"Guy Rouillier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Doug Quale wrote:
>>
>> # select 'a'::char(8) = 'a '::char(8);
>> ?column?
>> --
>> t
>> (1 row)
>>
>> Trailing blanks aren't significant in fixed-length strings, so the
>> question is whether Postgresql treats comparison of varchars right.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 01:02:15PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >that idiocy is that a string with two blank characters is not equal to a
> >string with a single blank character in Oracle. 'a ' is not equal to 'a
> >'. 'a ' is not equal to 'a'. Port that to another database. Seen the
> >J
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Of course, Oracle could tank the market by offering support at
>> un-competitive prices, but I can't think of a reason for them to do that
>> off the top of my head.
>
> They might hope that they could drive the e
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you want varchar(30) 'Dann Corbit' to compare equal to bpchar(30)
> 'Dann Corbit'?
> I would.
And your point is?
regression=# select varchar(30) 'Dann Corbit' = char(30) 'Dann Corbit';
?column?
--
t
(1 row)
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:40:44 -0300 (ADT)
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I was referring to trailing blanks, but did not explicitly say it,
> > though showed it in the examples. I am pretty sure that the SQL
> > standard says
Danniel
I think that the issue is:
Does PostgreSQL use something other than as the pad character?
If so, what character is that (and why choose it over )?
If not, then PostgreSQL is clearly returning the wrong results.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Fielder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: W
Dann Corbit wrote:
Doesn't NO PAD connect to the collating sequence (CS) rather than the
data type?
ISO/IEC 9075-2:1999 (E) (c)ISO/IEC
4.2 Character strings
A character set is described by a character set descriptor. A character
set descriptor includes:
- The name of the character set.
- The na
sue is:
Does PostgreSQL use something other than as the pad character?
If so, what character is that (and why choose it over )?
If not, then PostgreSQL is clearly returning the wrong results.
-Original Message-
From: Terry Fielder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 20
:pgsql-general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Fielder
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:37 PM
To: Marc G. Fournier
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
OK, I am not an expert on the SQL standard, but I thought
think that the issue is:
> > Does PostgreSQL use something other than as the pad character?
> > If so, what character is that (and why choose it over )?
> > If not, then PostgreSQL is clearly returning the wrong results.
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > &g
SPACE characteristic.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:07 PM
> > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql
ble bar (col1 char(30))
> > > > go
> > > > insert into foo values ('Danniel ')
> > > > go
> > > > insert into bar values ('Danniel ')
> > > > go
> > > > select * from foo,bar where foo.col1=bar.col1
> &g
s clearly returning the wrong results.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Terry Fielder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 2:02 PM
> > To: Dann Corbit
> > Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED
Doug Quale wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> I was referring to trailing blanks, but did not explicitly say it,
>>> though showed it in the examples. I am pretty sure that the SQL
>>> standard says that trailing whit
o: Dann Corbit
Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
I agree with you, but...
Actually that's not how the compare works usually.
Generally one of the operands is converted to the same datatype as the
r 19, 2005 2:02 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> Hi Dann
>
> Without looking at the internals to see if the 1 column or the other
is
> being co
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Quale
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:10 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> &q
; -Original Message-
> From: Terry Fielder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 1:39 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> I agre
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I was referring to trailing blanks, but did not explicitly say it,
>> though showed it in the examples. I am pretty sure that the SQL
>> standard says that trailing whitespace is insignificant in s
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:37 PM
To: Marc G. Fournier
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
OK, I am not an expert on the SQL standard, but I thought the
definition
varied by data type e.g. varchar <> bpch
it
> Cc: Stephan Szabo; Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
pgsql-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> >> -Original Message-
> >&g
sql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> OK, I am not an expert on the SQL standard, but I thought the
definition
> varied by data type e.g. varchar <> bpchar
>
> Terry
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:39 PM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Yes, clearly that is the wrong result according to the SQL standard.
>
> Here is a SQL*Server query:
> select 1 where 'a' = 'a ' AND 'a' = 'a ' AND 'a ' = 'a '
>
> It returns (correctly): 1
Doesn't that depend on the collating sequence in use, or
> -Original Message-
> From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 12:39 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
AND 'a ' = 'a '
It returns (correctly): 1
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re
OK, I am not an expert on the SQL standard, but I thought the definition
varied by data type e.g. varchar <> bpchar
Terry
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was referring to trailing blanks, but did not explicitly say it,
though showed it in the examples.
m: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 11:41 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> On Wed, 19 Oc
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was referring to trailing blanks, but did not explicitly say it,
though showed it in the examples. I am pretty sure that the SQL
standard says that trailing whitespace is insignificant in string
comparison.
Then we are broken too :)
# select
postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yep. It is not just limited to empty strings; An all blank string,
> > no matter the number of characters, is stored as NULL. And a
>
> I'm no big Oracle fan;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Yep. It is not just limited to empty strings; An all blank string,
> no matter the number of characters, is stored as NULL. And a
I'm no big Oracle fan; I'm trying to convince my company to convert a
major database to PG. But I can't reproduce what you are saying here
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 10/19/2005 01:02:15
PM:
> On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/19/2005 12:35:25 AM:
> >
> >> Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>> Strangely a pgsql to oracle exporter is a go
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott
Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg
Sent by: Sabino Mullane <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 9:02 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL]
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/19/2005 12:35:25 AM:
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Strangely a pgsql to oracle exporter is a good thing. It'd be a great
feature of PostgreSQL. Imagine how many people would start on
PostgreS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/19/2005 12:35:25 AM:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Strangely a pgsql to oracle exporter is a good thing. It'd be a great
> > feature of PostgreSQL. Imagine how many people would start on
> > PostgreSQL if they KNEW that one day they cou
I think this probably belongs back on -advocacy, so I'm cc:ing there
so we can move it.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 03:16:23PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> Interesting. So they are willing to appear ill-informed in public but
> better informed in private? To what end? That seems strange to me
> > No, that doesn't seem to follow ... if Oracle are spending their
> > resources to attack MySQL rather than us, the conclusion would be
that
> > they are clearly still more informed by "the buzz" than technical
merit.
>
> With no disrespect to PostgreSQL, MySQL has 100x our downloads and
> inst
Tom Lane wrote:
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Strangely a pgsql to oracle exporter is a good thing. It'd be a great
feature of PostgreSQL. Imagine how many people would start on
PostgreSQL if they KNEW that one day they could easily move to Oracle if
they needed to.
On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 12:51 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Just for the hell of it I looked at the popcon stats for debian
> installs (see below). It tells me the following:
>
> - Something like half the people who install mysql-server (any version)
> never use it. People who install Postg
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:55:22AM +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> With no disrespect to PostgreSQL, MySQL has 100x our downloads and
> installations...
Just for the hell of it I looked at the popcon stats for debian
installs (see below). It tells me the following:
- Something like half
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
If there smart enough to be buying innobase these days, you can bet that
by now they have this stuff all straightened out.
No, that doesn't seem to follow ... if Oracle are spending their
resources to attack MySQL rather than us, the conclu
Problem is: to offer such a thing with a straight face, we'd have to
confine ourselves to an Oracle-subset version of SQL. For instance,
lose the ability to distinguish empty-string from NULL.
I wasn't saying we write it - let Oracle do it :D
Chris
---(end of broadcas
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Strangely a pgsql to oracle exporter is a good thing. It'd be a great
> feature of PostgreSQL. Imagine how many people would start on
> PostgreSQL if they KNEW that one day they could easily move to Oracle if
> they needed to. Risk managem
1) PostgreSQL to Oracle database conversion utilities released by
Oracle (unlikely given extensible languages in PostgreSQL).
Strangely a pgsql to oracle exporter is a good thing. It'd be a great
feature of PostgreSQL. Imagine how many people would start on
PostgreSQL if they KNEW that one
As Andrew noted, we've already heard plenty of FUD from Oracle. What
we've not seen is a FUD campaign based on serious study of our
weaknesses --- they've only bothered to muster transparent attacks on
"open source DBs" in general. My prediction is that the next step will
be FUD that's really de
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 23:44, Chris Travers wrote:
> Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > With no disrespect to PostgreSQL, MySQL has 100x our downloads and
> > installations...
> >
> > Oracle is simply going after by far the biggest open source database
> > player...
>
> As I said, Oracle demon
Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMO, it is likely to start with one of two things:
> 1) PostgreSQL to Oracle database conversion utilities released by
> Oracle (unlikely given extensible languages in PostgreSQL).
> 2) Some sort of FUD campaign on the part of Oracle directed
> speci
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
With no disrespect to PostgreSQL, MySQL has 100x our downloads and
installations...
Oracle is simply going after by far the biggest open source database
player...
As I said, Oracle demonstrated in 2000 that they had already singled
MySQL out for special comp
If there smart enough to
be buying innobase these days, you can bet that by now they have this stuff
all straightened out.
No, that doesn't seem to follow ... if Oracle are spending their
resources to attack MySQL rather than us, the conclusion would be that
they are clearly still more inform
Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there smart enough to
> be buying innobase these days, you can bet that by now they have this stuff
> all straightened out.
No, that doesn't seem to follow ... if Oracle are spending their
resources to attack MySQL rather than us, the conclusion wou
On Monday 17 October 2005 13:01, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 09:46, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > Please don't make this assumption. PostgreSQL is *very* much on their
> > > radar, and probably represents the biggest long-term threat to their
> > > core database business at
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:19:53PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
Ok. but it is still a lazy approach and indicates that Oracle has not
singled us out for special treatment. Again, this was not the case with
MySQL as of 2000 at the latest.
I may be more paranoid,
Gregory Youngblood wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 12:05 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
5) Independant patent license firms. I guess it is a possibility, but in the
end, companies that mostly manufacture lawsuits usually go broke. Why would
you sue a non-profit if you were mostly trying to make
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Note the slide at the beginning of that from "PostgreSQL" to "open
source database products". That trick is consistent with several
other things I've seen from Oracle, including Ellison, on this topic.
The idea is to lump everything into the "open source" class, and the
On Tue, 2005-10-18 at 13:07 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
Gregory Youngblood wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 12:05 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>>5) Independant patent license firms. I guess it is a possibility, but in the end, companies that mostly manufacture lawsuits usually go broke. Wh
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:19:53PM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> Ok. but it is still a lazy approach and indicates that Oracle has not
> singled us out for special treatment. Again, this was not the case with
> MySQL as of 2000 at the latest.
I may be more paranoid, but that may be because our
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 12:05 -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
5) Independant patent license firms. I guess it is a possibility, but in the end, companies that mostly manufacture lawsuits usually go broke. Why would you sue a non-profit if you were mostly trying to make a buck with the lawsuit?
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 11:18:19AM -0700, Chris Travers wrote:
> I.e. I see no evidence that Oracle is taking the PostgreSQL threat
> seriously, and the FUD campaign is more evidence that they don't (there
> are plenty of areas where Oracle has an edge over PostgreSQL-- the idea
> that "PostgreS
>>
Doesn't really matter if the legal issues are ultimately in one's favor, if
one's erstwhile opponent has enough lawyer time ... even if you can survive the
lengthy battle, it may well be a pyrrhic victory.
<<
Well, I would assume two things would happen in a case like that. The first is
t
Tom Lane wrote:
They might hope that they could drive the existing support companies out
of business (assuming they didn't get convicted of antitrust violations
first --- which would be an open-and-shut case, but with the Republicans
in office they probably wouldn't get prosecuted :-().
Sort
elein wrote:
The scenario that no one has mentioned wrt postgresql and oracle is
that oracle can take the source code, branch it or not and support it.
If they branch, it will have less credibility and it will become "interesting".
But support money from a big name company (Oracle) should be
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, Oracle could tank the market by offering support at
> un-competitive prices, but I can't think of a reason for them to do that
> off the top of my head.
They might hope that they could drive the existing support companies out
of business (ass
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 11:20:00AM -0700, elein wrote:
> The scenario that no one has mentioned wrt postgresql and oracle is
> that oracle can take the source code, branch it or not and support it.
> If they branch, it will have less credibility and it will become
> "interesting".
> But support
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 02:28:52PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> > But what if they came in sideways and bought Command Prompt?
>
> Well then I would be sitting on a beach in New Zealend with an umbrella
> drink :)
>
> > (As an
> > example.) You could do a lot more to destroy PostgreSQL'
Scott Marlowe wrote:
I'd bet they read plenty, but don't necessarily understand a lot,
judging by their pitiful fud campaign when Afilias proposed using
postgresql as a database behind .org. They tried to say PostgreSQL
didn't support transactions. So, while we may be on their screens, and
I'm
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 22:46 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> And they probably read every word we write ;)
...and it will certainly slow them down :-)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http
On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 09:46, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > Please don't make this assumption. PostgreSQL is *very* much on their radar,
> > and probably represents the biggest long-term threat to their core database
> > business at the moment. We got a hint of that during the .org bidding, but
Please don't make this assumption. PostgreSQL is *very* much on their radar,
and probably represents the biggest long-term threat to their core database
business at the moment. We got a hint of that during the .org bidding, but
for now it is in Oracle's interest not to call attention to PostgreSQL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I don't think that PostgreSQL is really on Oracle's radar at the moment.
Please don't make this assumption. PostgreSQL is *very* much on their radar,
and probably represents the biggest long-term threat to their core database
business at the momen
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
But what if they came in sideways and bought Command Prompt?
Well then I would be sitting on a beach in New Zealend with an umbrella
drink :)
(As an
example.) You could do a lot more to destroy PostgreSQL's market in the
business world by destroying the vari
> But what if they came in sideways and bought Command Prompt?
Well then I would be sitting on a beach in New Zealend with an umbrella
drink :)
> (As an
> example.) You could do a lot more to destroy PostgreSQL's market in the
> business world by destroying the various support mechanisms.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Matthew Terenzio wrote:
As much as I respect Marc and Postgresql.org, I can't see Oracle
hiring him away as a "killer" threat to the community. People would
set up camp somewhere else, like Command Prompt. It would hurt
things for a while but t
> Stupid question here ... if Oracle came at us with "the Software Patent
> crap", is there any "reasonable time" provided to remove it? We've
> already shown in the past that that isn't a big hurdle, with the ARC
> stuff, so am just curiuos as to how big a thing the Patent stuff is, or
> does
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
PostgreSQL doesn't suffer from that. Our only real, substantiated
concern that I can see is the potential for the Software Patent crap.
Stupid question here ... if Oracle came at us with "the Software
Patent crap", is ther
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
PostgreSQL doesn't suffer from that. Our only real, substantiated
concern that I can see is the potential for the Software Patent crap.
Stupid question here ... if Oracle came at us with "the Software Patent
crap", is there any "reasonable time" pro
Right. Though there are attacks, there are no fatal attacks. MySQL has
to make money, so they can have fatal attacks.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthew Terenzio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As much as I respect Marc and Pos
Matthew Terenzio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As much as I respect Marc and Postgresql.org, I can't see Oracle hiring
> him away as a "killer" threat to the community. People would set up
> camp somewhere else, like Command Prompt. It would hurt things for a
> while but the software is too impo
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Matthew Terenzio wrote:
As much as I respect Marc and Postgresql.org, I can't see Oracle hiring
him away as a "killer" threat to the community. People would set up
camp somewhere else, like Command Prompt. It would hurt things for a
while but the software is too import
Matthew Terenzio wrote:
> As much as I respect Marc and Postgresql.org, I can't see Oracle hiring
> him away as a "killer" threat to the community. People would set up
> camp somewhere else, like Command Prompt. It would hurt things for a
> while but the software is too important to too many to
As much as I respect Marc and Postgresql.org, I can't see Oracle hiring
him away as a "killer" threat to the community. People would set up
camp somewhere else, like Command Prompt. It would hurt things for a
while but the software is too important to too many to be killed by a
domain name or p
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 10/12/2005 6:18 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote:
Hi,
Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project
with big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path
to earn a l
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jan Wieck wrote:
Oracle could even develop an exceptional interest in keeping PostgreSQL
alive as it's "future DB engineer forge".
Jan,
Or, to demonstrate that it's not a monopoly. There will be two choices:
Oracle and postgres.
Rich
--
Dr. Richard B. Shepard, Preside
On 10/12/2005 6:18 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote:
Hi,
Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project with
big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path to earn
a lot of money. So, new talented developers
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jussi Mikkola wrote:
Hi,
Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project with
big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good path to earn
a lot of money. So, new talented developers could join the project and see
that as a path t
Hi,
Well, if the PostgreSQL developers would be hired away from the project
with big money, would that not mean, that the project would be a good
path to earn a lot of money. So, new talented developers could join the
project and see that as a path to high salary jobs??
Rgs,
Jussi
Bruce M
Ned,
> and it looks like postgres.net got picked up by some
> guy who's sitting on it.
yeah, I'm not sure what he wants. Postgres.net currently directs people to
PostgreSQL.org, and I've offered the contact of record money to buy it off
him, with no response.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Dat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/11/2005 09:59:16 PM:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And look at it, all Oracle would have to do is to be so open source
> > friendly that they make InnoDB GPL only. Can you imagine the confusion
> > in the MySQL fan club if Oracle releases the next GPL
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc Fournier owns the PostgreSQL trademark and domain names.
Minor point here, but the following domain names:
postgresql.com
postgres.com
postgres.org
... were contributed back to the project by the late Great Bridge LLC, and are
registered to the PGDG - with Tom as
On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 18:52 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Oracle certainly will not win, and I think they know that
I think this too and that's why I'm here.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And look at it, all Oracle would have to do is to be so open source
> friendly that they make InnoDB GPL only. Can you imagine the confusion
> in the MySQL fan club if Oracle releases the next GPL version of InnoDB
> and MySQL AB announces that they ripped
Jim C. Nasby was quoted as saying:
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it
> > > actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At
> > > this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how
> > > e
I agree with Jan.
I think a good part of this whole situation has more to do with MySQL
having a core part of its product be dependent on an external entity.
Be they open source or not. I would think they have thought about
this possibility at various points in the past.
From where I sit,
On 10/11/2005 6:31 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it
actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At
this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how
exactly the atta
[ Comment asking what we can do to protect ourselves.]
We can't do much, actually. The trademark thing can be secured, but
other than that, I see no other defenses we could use. We can't prevent
people from being hired, and we can't guard against patent attacks.
Seems you could argue that if
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 06:52:16PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We can't do much, actually. The trademark thing can be secured, but
> other than that, I see no other defenses we could use. We can't prevent
> people from being hired, and we can't guard against patent attacks.
Actually, I think t
Here is a followup to this email. A few people asked me questions off
list, and here are my replies:
[ Comment mentioning Open Office and Mozilla have not been attacked.]
Cconsider that one thing that has restrained Microsoft (and previously
IBM) was US Department of Justice oversight. Oracle
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
