On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 07:36:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> > 2. I disagree with way the above statistics were computed. That eleven
> >million-year figure gets whittled down pretty quickly when you
> >factor in all the sources of corruption, e
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 03:38:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > MD5 is a cryptographic hash, which means (AFAIK) that ideally it is
> > impossible to produce a collision using any other method than brute
> > force attempts.
> True but irrelevant. What we
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> MD5 is a cryptographic hash, which means (AFAIK) that ideally it is
> impossible to produce a collision using any other method than brute
> force attempts.
True but irrelevant. What we need to worry about is the probability
that a random error will be
Bruce Guenter wrote:
>
> CRCs are designed to catch N-bit errors (ie N bits in a row with their
> values flipped). N is (IIRC) the number of bits in the CRC minus one.
> So, a 32-bit CRC can catch all 31-bit errors. That's the only guarantee
> a CRC gives. Everything else has a 1 in 2^32-1 cha
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... Taking an
> arbitrary 32 bits of a MD5 would likely be less collision prone than
> using a 32-bit CRC, and it appears faster as well.
... but that would be an algorithm that you know NOTHING about the
properties of. What is your basis for asserting
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 10:36:39AM -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>Incidentally, I benchmarked the previously mentioned 64-bit fingerprint,
>the standard 32-bit CRC, MD5 and SHA, and the fastest algorithm on my
>Celeron and on a PIII was MD5. The 64-bit fingerprint was only a hair
>
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 01:58:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ... Taking an
> > arbitrary 32 bits of a MD5 would likely be less collision prone than
> > using a 32-bit CRC, and it appears faster as well.
>
> ... but that would be an algorithm that you k
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:19:39 -0600
From: Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Incidentally, I benchmarked the previously mentioned 64-bit fingerprint,
the standard 32-bit CRC, MD5 and SHA, and the fastest algorithm on my
Celeron and on a PIII was MD5. The 64-bit fingerprint was onl
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:01:23PM -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
> 1. Computing a CRC-64 takes only about twice as long as a CRC-32, for
>2^32 times the confidence. That's pretty cheap confidence.
Incidentally, I benchmarked the previously mentioned 64-bit fingerprint,
the standard 32-bit CRC,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> 2. I disagree with way the above statistics were computed. That eleven
>million-year figure gets whittled down pretty quickly when you
>factor in all the sources of corruption, even without crashes.
>(Power failures are only one of many s
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:35:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Remember that we are already sitting atop hardware that's really
> pretty reliable, despite the carping that's been going on in this
> thread. All that we have to do is detect the infrequent case where a
> block of data didn't get written
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I would strongly suggest to use strong hashes like RIPEMD or
>> MD5 instead of CRC-32 and the like.
> Other opinions? Also, we shouldn't forget licence issues.
I agree with whoever commented that crypto hashes are silly for this
application. A 64-
> > This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
> > I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
> > till next monday.
>
> I have been experimenting with CRCs for the past 6 month in
> our database for internal logging purposes. Downloaded a lot of
> hash librarie
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
I can find CRC func).
>>
>> Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
> Thanks! What about Copyrights/licence?
Should fit fine under our regular BSD license. CRC as such is long
sinc
> > This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
> > I can find CRC func).
>
> Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
Thanks! What about Copyrights/licence?
Vadim
On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 06:40:49PM +1100, Horst Herb wrote:
> > This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
> > I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
> > till next monday.
>
> As the logging might include large data blocks, especially now that
> we can TOAST
Horst Herb wrote:
>
> > This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
> > I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
> > till next monday.
>
> I have been experimenting with CRCs for the past 6 month in our database for
> internal logging purposes. Downloaded a lo
> This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
> I can find CRC func). And I could implement "physical log"
> till next monday.
I have been experimenting with CRCs for the past 6 month in our database for
internal logging purposes. Downloaded a lot of hash libraries, tried
differ
> Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
Drat, I dropped the table declarations:
/* Table of CRCs of all 8-bit messages. */
unsigned long crc_table[256];
/* Flag: has the table been computed? Initially false. */
int crc_table_computed = 0;
regards
"Mikheev, Vadim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This may be implemented very fast (if someone points me where
> I can find CRC func).
Lifted from the PNG spec (RFC 2083):
15. Appendix: Sample CRC Code
The following sample code represents a practical implementation of
the CRC (Cyclic Redun
> > > > Sounds great! We can follow this way: when first after last
> > > > checkpoint update to a page being logged, XLOG code can log
> > > > not AM specific update record but entire page (creating backup
> > > > "physical log"). During after crash recovery such pages will
> > > > be redone fir
> CRCs are designed to catch N-bit errors (ie N bits in a row with their
> values flipped). N is (IIRC) the number of bits in the CRC minus one.
> So, a 32-bit CRC can catch all 31-bit errors. That's the only guarantee
> a CRC gives. Everything else has a 1 in 2^32-1 chance of producing the
>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:13:33PM +, Daniele Orlandi wrote:
> Bruce Guenter wrote:
> > - Assume that a CRC is a guarantee. A CRC would be a good addition to
> > help ensure the data wasn't broken by flakey drive firmware, but
> > doesn't guarantee consistency.
> Even a CRC per transactio
Bruce Guenter wrote:
>
> - Assume that a CRC is a guarantee. A CRC would be a good addition to
> help ensure the data wasn't broken by flakey drive firmware, but
> doesn't guarantee consistency.
Even a CRC per transaction (it could be a nice END record) ?
Bye!
--
Daniele
--
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 11:15:26AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, but there would need to be a way to verify the last page or
> > record from txlog when running on crap hardware.
> How exactly *do* we determine where the end of the valid log da
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes, but there would need to be a way to verify the last page or
> > record from txlog when running on crap hardware.
>
> How exactly *do* we determine where the end of the valid log data is,
> anyway?
Couldn't you use a
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but there would need to be a way to verify the last page or
> record from txlog when running on crap hardware.
How exactly *do* we determine where the end of the valid log data is,
anyway?
regards, tom lane
> > > Sounds great! We can follow this way: when first after last
> > > checkpoint update to a page being logged, XLOG code can log
> > > not AM specific update record but entire page (creating backup
> > > "physical log"). During after crash recovery such pages will
> > > be redone first, ensur
Trond Eivind GlomsrØd wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Mitch Vincent wrote:
> > > code release would have to be somehow honored.. I'm just wondering if the PG
> > > team could change the license even if they wanted to.. I should go read the
> > _Every_single_ copyright holder o
"Martin A. Marques" wrote:
>
> Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the BSD?
It is somewhat difficult to put other peoples code under some different
license.
And AFAIK (IANAL) the old license would still apply too for all the code
that
has been released under it.
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mitch Vincent wrote:
> >
> > Regardless of what license is best, could the license even be changed now? I
> > mean, some of the initial Berkeley code is still in there in some sense and
> > I would think that the original license (BSD I assume) of the ini
Mitch Vincent wrote:
>
> Regardless of what license is best, could the license even be changed now? I
> mean, some of the initial Berkeley code is still in there in some sense and
> I would think that the original license (BSD I assume) of the initial source
> code release would have to be someho
On Tuesday 05 December 2000 18:03, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the
> > BSD?
>
> its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions,
> GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many ti
there will always be the base PostgreSQL out there for everyone.. I
hope.
Just my $0.02 worth..
-Mitch
- Original Message -
From: "Lamar Owen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PostgreSQL Development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:45 PM
Sub
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> its been brought up and rejected continuously ... in some of our opinions,
> GPL is more harmful then helpful ... as has been said before many times,
> and I'm sure will continue to be said "changing the license to GPL is a
> non-discussable issue" ...
I've declined com
> > Sounds great! We can follow this way: when first after last
> > checkpoint update to a page being logged, XLOG code can log
> > not AM specific update record but entire page (creating backup
> > "physical log"). During after crash recovery such pages will
> > be redone first, ensuring page co
On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Martin A. Marques wrote:
> On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> > > There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
> > > is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
> > > all, the PG community has long ackn
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 10:43:03AM -0800, Mikheev, Vadim wrote:
> > As far as I know (and have tested in excess) Informix IDS
> > does survive any power loss without leaving the db in a
> > corrupted state. The basic technology is, that it only relys
> > on writes to one "file" (raw device in tha
> > > I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of
> > > ERserver is related to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server?
> > > Let me clear things:
> > >
> > > 1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version >= 6.5
> > >
> > > 2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Se
On Tuesday 05 December 2000 16:23, Martin A. Marques wrote:
>
> Has somebody thought about putting PG in the GPL licence instead of the
> BSD? PG inc would still be able to do there money giving support (just like
> IBM, HP and Compaq are doing there share with Linux), without been able to
> close
On Sunday 03 December 2000 21:49, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> I've been trying to follow this thread, and seem to have missed where
> someone arrived at the conclusion that we were proprietarizing(word?) this
I have missed that part as well.
> ... we do apologize that it didn't get out mid-Octo
> > I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of
> > ERserver is related to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server?
> > Let me clear things:
> >
> > 1. ERserver isn't based on WAL. It will work with any version >= 6.5
> >
> > 2. WAL was partially sponsored by my employer, Sectorbase.com,
On Sunday 03 December 2000 12:41, mlw wrote:
> Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
> > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
> > a few flaws... ;)
>
> While I have not contributed anything to Postgres
On Sunday 03 December 2000 04:00, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> > There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
> > is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
> > all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would
> > allow others to
> As far as I know (and have tested in excess) Informix IDS
> does survive any power loss without leaving the db in a
> corrupted state. The basic technology is, that it only relys
> on writes to one "file" (raw device in that case), the txlog,
> which is directly written. All writes to the txlog
On Tue, Dec 05, 2000 at 05:29:36AM +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> As you can see, "core" == "fundamental" in the general sense, in a
> statement not written specifically for the hacker community but for the
> world at large. In many cases, taking one syllable rather than four is a
> good thing
> Right. This is very much the guarantee that RAID (non-zero) makes,
> except "other than disk hardware failure" is replaced by "other than
> the failure of two drives". RAID gives you that (very, very
> substantial
> boost which is why it is so popular for DB servers). It doesn't give
> you
> This paragraph from erserver.com:
> eRServer development is currently concentrating on core, universal
> functions that will enable individuals and IT professionals
> to implement PostgreSQL ORDBMS solutions for mission critical
> datawarehousing, datamining, and
Can we PLEASE kill this thread? There are only a handful of people who
are making contributions here and nothing really new is being said. I
agree that the issue should be discussed, but this does not seem like the
right forum.
Thanks.
- brandon
b. palmer, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgp: www.crimel
At 02:47 PM 12/1/00 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>All we can do is the best we can ;-). In that light, I think it's
>reasonable for Postgres to proceed on the assumption that fsync does
>what it claims to do, ie, all blocks are written when it returns.
>We can't realistically expect to persuade a disk
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Nathan Myers wrote:
> Second, the transaction log is not, as has been noted far too frequently
> for Vince's comfort, really written atomically. The OS has promised
> to write it atomically, and given the opportunity, it will. If you pull
> the plug, all promises are broken
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> >A recent example of non-sinister change in another area is the work done
> >to release 7.0.3. This is a release which would not have happened in
> >previous cycles, since we are so close to beta on 7.1. But GB paid Tom
> >Lane to work on it as part of *the
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> At 11:59 PM 12/3/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > the sanctity of the *core* server is *always*
> >foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ...
>
> What happens if financially things aren't entirely rosy with your
> comp
Horst Herb wrote:
> > > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention.
> Figuring
> > > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating
> ^^
> > > features. And building a _product_.
> Oops.
> In fact, it might seem to be common courtesy...
An odd choice of words coming from you Don.
We are offering our services and expertise to a community outside
-hackers, as a business formed in a way that this new community expects
to see. Nothing special or sinister here. Other than it seems to
At 07:11 AM 12/4/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>We are offering our services and expertise to a community outside
>-hackers, as a business formed in a way that this new community expects
>to see. Nothing special or sinister here. Other than it seems to have
>raised the point that you expected
Judging by the information below, taken *directly* from PostgreSQL, Inc.
website, it appears that they will be releasing all code into the main
source code branch -- with the exception of "Advanced Replication and
Distributed Information capabilities" (to which capabilities they are
referring is n
At 09:42 PM 12/3/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
>This paragraph from erserver.com:
>
>eRServer development is currently concentrating on core, universal
>functions that will enable individuals and IT professionals
>to implement PostgreSQL ORDBMS solutions for mission c
At 11:59 PM 12/3/00 -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> the sanctity of the *core* server is *always*
>foremost in our minds, no matter what other projects we are working on ...
What happens if financially things aren't entirely rosy with your company?
The problem in taking itty-bitty steps in this
At 03:35 PM 11/30/00 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>>
>> v7.1 should improve crash recovery ...
>> ... with the WAL stuff that Vadim is producing, you'll be able to
>> recover up until the point that the power cable was pulled out o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Myers) writes:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 09:13:28PM +1100, Philip Warner wrote:
>> You have raised some interesting issues regrading write-order etc. Can we
>> assume that when fsync *returns*, all records are written - though not
>> necessarily in the order that the IO's
At 01:06 PM 12/3/00 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Open source software is a
>privilege,
I admit that I don't subscribe to Stallman's "source to software is a
right" argument. That's far off my reality map.
> and nobody has the right to call someone "irresponsible"
>because they want to get
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 12:00:12AM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Nathan Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > v7.1 should improve crash recovery ...
> > > ... with the WAL stuff that Vadim is producing, you'll be able to
hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Don Baccus"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PostgreSQL Development"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > I
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> >
> > > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambig
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:53:08PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > > ever you want.
> >
> > That
; "Thomas
> Lockhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Don Baccus"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PostgreSQL Development"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
>
>
> > On Sun
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> > If this is the impression that someone gave, I am shocked ... Thomas
> > himself has already posted stating that it was a scheduale slip on his
> > part.
>
> Actually, Thomas said:
>
> Thomas> Hmm. What has kept replication from happening in th
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the last 3 years what company that you
know of didn't consider an IPO part of the "business and such". Most
tech companies that have been formed in the last 4 - 5 years have one
thing on the brain--IPO. It's the #1 thing (sadly) that they care about.
I only wished
gt;; "Thomas
Lockhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Don Baccus"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PostgreSQL Development"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
&g
> I'm still anxious to see the core patches needed to support replication.
> Since you've leaked that they work going back to v6.5, I have a feeling
> the approach may not be the one I was hoping for.
There are no core patches required to support replication. This has been
said already, but perha
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 08:49:09PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> >
> > IIRC, this thread woke up on someone complaining about PostgreSQl inc
> > promising
> > to release some code for replication in mid-october and asking for
> > confirmation
>
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> At 11:00 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
> >> There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
> >> is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
> >> all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Gary MacDougall wrote:
> > If you write a program which stands on its own, takes no work from
> > uncompensated parties, then you have the unambiguous right to do what
> > ever you want.
>
> Thats a given.
okay, then now I'm confused ... neither SePICK or erServer are derive
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, mlw wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
> > > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
> > > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
> > >
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> >
> > > > I *am* one of those volunteers
> > >
> > > Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
> > > to test your code, and leaving on vacati
At 5:17 PM -0500 12/3/00, mlw wrote:
>I honestly feel that it is wrong to take what others have shared and use
>it for the basis of something you will not share, and I can't understand
>how anyone could think differently.
Yeah, it really sucks when companies that are in buisness to make money by
> mlw wrote: [heavily edited]
>> No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
>> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
>> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
>> I honestly feel that it is wrong to take wh
Adam Haberlach wrote:
>In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over
> this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we
> are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up?
pgsql-yawn, where any of them can happen as often and
mlw wrote:
>
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
> > > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
> > > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
> > > cheat the spirit o
On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 05:17:36PM -0500, mlw wrote:
> ... if I write code which is dependent on
> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
This is short and I will say no more:
The entire socia
> No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
> the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
> open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
>
Actually, your not legally bound to anything if you write "new" additional
co
Gary MacDougall wrote:
>
> > No, not at all. At least for me, if I write code which is dependent on
> > the open source work of others, then hell yes, that work should also be
> > open source. That, to me, is the difference between right and wrong.
> >
>
> Actually, your not legally bound to any
"Gary MacDougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No offense Trond, if you were in on the Red Hat IPO from the start,
> you'd have to say those people made "good money".
I'm talking about the business as such, not the IPO where the price
went stratospheric (we were priced like we were earning 1 or
I just
think there is an issue with OSL that will start to catch up with itself
pretty soon.
g.
- Original Message -
From: "Trond Eivind GlomsrØd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PostgreSQL Development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2000 4:24 PM
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > I know this is a borderline rant, and I am sorry, but I think it is very
> > important that the integrity of open source be preserved at 100% because
> > it is a very slippery slope, and we are all surrounded by the temptation
> > cheat the spirit of open source "just a li
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
>
> > > I *am* one of those volunteers
> >
> > Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
> > to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
> >
> > You were irresponsible then, and you're being
mlw wrote:
>
> Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
> > me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
> > a few flaws... ;)
>
> While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have
> contributed
"Gary MacDougall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think this trend is MUCH bigger than what Postgres, Inc. is
> doing... its happening all over the comminity. Heck take a look
> around... Jabber, Postgres, Red Hat, SuSe, Storm etc. etc. these
> companies are making good money off a business pla
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Horst Herb wrote:
> > > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention.
> Figuring
> > > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating
> ^^
> > > features. And building
Don Baccus wrote:
>
> At 04:42 AM 12/3/00 +, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >> This statement of yours kinda belittles the work done over the past
> >> few years by volunteers.
> >
> >imho it does not,
>
> Sure it does. You in essence are saying that "advanced replication is so
> hard that it cou
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Don Baccus wrote:
> > I *am* one of those volunteers
>
> Yes, I well remember you screwing up PG 7.0 just before beta, without bothering
> to test your code, and leaving on vacation.
>
> You were irresponsible then, and you're being irresponsible now.
Okay, so let me get
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Adam Haberlach wrote:
> In any case, can we create pgsql-politics so we don't have to go over
> this issue every three months? Can we create pgsql-benchmarks while we
> are at it, to take care of the other thread that keeps popping up?
no skin off my back:
pgs
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> mlw writes:
>
> > There are hundreds (thousands?) of people that have contributed to the
> > development of Postgres, either directly with code, or beta testing,
> > with the assumption that they are benefiting a community. Many would
> > probably not have done so if
isentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PostgreSQL Development"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 5:11 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version
> At 03:51 PM 12/2/00 -0600, Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
>
> >"We expect to have the sourc
> >I totaly missed your point here. How closing source of ERserver is related
> >to closing code of PostgreSQL DB server? Let me clear things:
>
> (not based on WAL)
>
> That's wasn't clear from the blurb.
>
> Still, this notion that PG, Inc will start producing closed-source products
> poisons
At 11:00 PM 12/2/00 -0800, Vadim Mikheev wrote:
>> There is risk here. It isn't so much in the fact that PostgreSQL, Inc
>> is doing a couple of modest closed-source things with the code. After
>> all, the PG community has long acknowleged that the BSD license would
>> allow others to co-op the
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> As soon as you find a business model which does not require income, let
> me know. The .com'ers are trying it at the moment, and there seems to be
> a few flaws... ;)
While I have not contributed anything to Postgres yet, I have
contributed to other environments. The pro
> > How long until the entire code base gets co-opted?
>
> Yeah so what? Nobody's forcing you to use, buy, or pay attention to any
> such efforts. The market will determine whether the release model of
> PostgreSQL, Inc. appeals to customers. Open source software is a
> privilege, and nobody ha
> > Branding. Phone support lines. Legal departments/Lawsuit prevention.
Figuring
> > out how to prevent open source from stealing the thunder by duplicating
^^
> > features. And building a _product_.
Oops. You didn't really mean that,
1 - 100 of 176 matches
Mail list logo
