Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Bruce Momji » Tue, 26 Jun 2001 23:35:45



Here is a press release stating Red Hat will offer commercial support
for PostgreSQL:

        http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_database.html

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us

  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Brent R. Matzell » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:02:36



Quote:> Here is a press release stating Red Hat will offer commercial
> support
> for PostgreSQL:

http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_database.html

Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

Brent

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Bruce Momji » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:40:51



> > Here is a press release stating Red Hat will offer commercial
> > support
> > for PostgreSQL:

> http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_database.html

> Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
> placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

They are placing developers too.  New people.  I assume they will
announce something here today.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us

  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Trond Eivind Glomsr » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:53:32




> > Here is a press release stating Red Hat will offer commercial
> > support
> > for PostgreSQL:

> http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_database.html

> Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
> placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

Yes, we will/are working on enhancements for PostgreSQL.

--
Trond Eivind Glomsr?d
Red Hat, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Mitch Vincen » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 00:57:16


    What they'll probably do is write a fancy-schmancy installer and call it
"The Redhat Database", since that's been business plan with other all
"their" other software..... Just kidding RH guys *grin*...

    Since the same people who backed (and are backing?) Redhat started and
own Greatbridge, I'm not at all surprised to see RH start to openly support
PostgreSQL.. All good for PostgreSQL in the end, I think...

-Mitch

----- Original Message -----


Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Red Hat to support PostgreSQL


> > Here is a press release stating Red Hat will offer commercial
> > support
> > for PostgreSQL:

> http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_database.html

> Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
> placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

> Brent

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Thalis A. Kalfigopoulo » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 01:26:53




> > > Here is a press release stating Red Hat will offer commercial
> > > support
> > > for PostgreSQL:

> > http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_database.html

> > Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
> > placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

> They are placing developers too.  New people.  I assume they will
> announce something here today.

Yes, but are they going to be collaborating closely with the current Pg core devel team or are they going to work on their own? The concern is regarding the Cnet article about "Redhat forking off eventually with their own pg". Their representative said that there is not such intention but given that "verba volant, scripta manent", what are the guarantees against that?

It would really spoil my day to have GM'ed Postgresqls running around. I can barely keep up with one, let alone two ;-)

cheers,
thalis

> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us

>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Justin Cli » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:18:35


Hi all,

My thought on this is that Red Hat will do the following :

a) Gain entry into a profitable, growing market segment with their
product
b) Enhance PostgreSQL's profile through their work
c) Assist in more people developing with and for PostgreSQL, both
through Red Hat's people and through others adding support for "Red Hat
Database" to their products
  c.a) More bugs fixed
  c.b) More features added
  c.c) Further improved documentation
  c.d) Improve the present database design, management and development
tools.  Sybase, Oracle, Informix benefit from them.  We will too.

At some point they'll probably provide some direction into the
PostgreSQL effort too.  Nothing wrong with this as long as it's to the
benefit of PostgreSQL users (not just "Red Hat Database" users) and
generally acceptable.  I think their input should be encouraged, just
not taken verbatim.

So, I reckon it's a great thing to have more people involved with
PostgreSQL.  The PostgreSQL community is strong, and should not be
scared of this.  :-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift




> > > > Here is a press release stating Red Hat will offer commercial
> > > > support
> > > > for PostgreSQL:

> > > http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/2001/press_database.html

> > > Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
> > > placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

> > They are placing developers too.  New people.  I assume they will
> > announce something here today.

> Yes, but are they going to be collaborating closely with the current Pg core devel team or are they going to work on their own? The concern is regarding the Cnet article about "Redhat forking off eventually with their own pg". Their representative said that there is not such intention but given that "verba volant, scripta manent", what are the guarantees against that?

> It would really spoil my day to have GM'ed Postgresqls running around. I can barely keep up with one, let alone two ;-)

> cheers,
> thalis

> > --
> >   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us

> >   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
> >   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

> > http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Bruce Momji » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:18:42



> > > Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
> > > placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

> > They are placing developers too.  New people.  I assume they will
> > announce something here today.

> Yes, but are they going to be collaborating closely with the
> current Pg core devel team or are they going to work on their
> own? The concern is regarding the Cnet article about "Redhat
> forking off eventually with their own pg". Their representative
> said that there is not such intention but given that "verba
> volant, scripta manent", what are the guarantees against that?

Well, I don't know Red Hat has done forking in any other open source
project, so I don't see why it would happen here.

Yes, technically, they can fork it, but so can anyone else.  The BSD
license concept is that a company could not possibly duplicate the
effectiveness of the open source community, so why would any company
try.

Quote:> It would really spoil my day to have GM'ed Postgresqls running
> around. I can barely keep up with one, let alone two ;-)

That is exactly it.  No one could keep up with us in a forked branch of
our code, and if they could, we would not be doing our jobs and maybe
the fork would be a good thing.

The biggest fork I can remember was from Jolitz's 386/BSD project.
Jolitz was clearly keeping it all to himself and not doing anything to
advance the code.  The NetBSD fork was clearly a good thing.

I am not saying anything about PostgreSQL forking. What I am saying is
that as long as we are healthy, no one can fork effectively, and this is
true of all open-source projects.

In fact, we have advanced so quickly in comparison to other open-source
databases _because_ we are so healthy.  If we ever get closed-minded,
insulting, non-inclusive, or rude, you guys better kick us in the butts.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us

  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Thalis A. Kalfigopoulo » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 02:59:27




> > > > Is RedHat simply providing PostgreSQL support or are they
> > > > placing developers to work on enhancements/bug fixes as well?

> > > They are placing developers too.  New people.  I assume they will
> > > announce something here today.

> > Yes, but are they going to be collaborating closely with the
> > current Pg core devel team or are they going to work on their
> > own? The concern is regarding the Cnet article about "Redhat
> > forking off eventually with their own pg". Their representative
> > said that there is not such intention but given that "verba
> > volant, scripta manent", what are the guarantees against that?

> Well, I don't know Red Hat has done forking in any other open source
> project, so I don't see why it would happen here.

Always a first time for everything bad. Anyway, not wanting to be the pessimist of the bunch, I'll hold my horses and hope that none of my "fears" turns into reality. The issue is that none of the other open source projects RH supported was anything major they could make real money out of, at least not compared to what they can make out of the DB arena. Hopefully, even if things don't turn out exactly as expected, they will have benefited Pg a lot by then.

Quote:> That is exactly it.  No one could keep up with us in a forked branch of
> our code, and if they could, we would not be doing our jobs and maybe
> the fork would be a good thing.

I fear not the technical part...I fear the marketing part. This is were battles are won today (sad but true).

Quote:> In fact, we have advanced so quickly in comparison to other open-source
> databases _because_ we are so healthy.  If we ever get closed-minded,
> insulting, non-inclusive, or rude, you guys better kick us in the butts.

Hopefully I won't have to look for my spiked shoes anytime soon >-)

Just to lighten up here, I read the following in an article:

'Three months ago, IBM rented a billboard near Oracle's Silicon Valley headquarters declaring a "search for intelligent software," only to find, a few days later, that an Oracle billboard reporting "Then you've come to the right place. Oracle," had been put up.'

cheers,
thalis

> --
>   Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us

>   +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
>   +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Trond Eivind Glomsr » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 03:13:13



Quote:> Always a first time for everything bad. Anyway, not wanting to be the
> pessimist of the bunch, I'll hold my horses and hope that none of my
> "fears" turns into reality. The issue is that none of the other open
> source projects RH supported was anything major they could make real
> money out of, at least not compared to what they can make out of the
> DB arena.

Uh? The database project is small FTTB (moneywise) compared to other
things like the kernel, gcc and glibc which are core parts of our base
product.

--
Trond Eivind Glomsr?d
Red Hat, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Thalis A. Kalfigopoulo » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:19:10




> > Always a first time for everything bad. Anyway, not wanting to be the
> > pessimist of the bunch, I'll hold my horses and hope that none of my
> > "fears" turns into reality. The issue is that none of the other open
> > source projects RH supported was anything major they could make real
> > money out of, at least not compared to what they can make out of the
> > DB arena.

> Uh? The database project is small FTTB (moneywise) compared to other
> things like the kernel, gcc and glibc which are core parts of our base
> product.

> --
> Trond Eivind Glomsr?d
> Red Hat, Inc.

But kernel/gcc/glibc don't comprise a market by themselves. They are just components of the OS market as a whole (if there is any such thing left anyway). Whereas PostgreSQL is one product part of one market, the DBMS market. So forking off just this one thing will mean stepping in for a market's share which is indeed big $$$. This couldn't be the case with gnome or gcc.
I'm not comparing sizes. Just strategic importance :^)

--thalis

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Trond Eivind Glomsr » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 04:47:50





> > > Always a first time for everything bad. Anyway, not wanting to be the
> > > pessimist of the bunch, I'll hold my horses and hope that none of my
> > > "fears" turns into reality. The issue is that none of the other open
> > > source projects RH supported was anything major they could make real
> > > money out of, at least not compared to what they can make out of the
> > > DB arena.

> > Uh? The database project is small FTTB (moneywise) compared to other
> > things like the kernel, gcc and glibc which are core parts of our base
> > product.

> But kernel/gcc/glibc don't comprise a market by themselves.

But you called them "not major" and something we couldn't make money
from. We make quite a bit of money on gcc, to give one example -
through contracts to add features, support for architectures, support
etc. We are the number one company in that area (remember, Cygnus is
now part of Red Hat).

Quote:> They are just components of the OS market as a whole (if there is any such
> thing left anyway).

But the core on which the rest is built.

--
Trond Eivind Glomsr?d
Red Hat, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Thalis A. Kalfigopoulo » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 05:09:49






> > > > Always a first time for everything bad. Anyway, not wanting to be the
> > > > pessimist of the bunch, I'll hold my horses and hope that none of my
> > > > "fears" turns into reality. The issue is that none of the other open
> > > > source projects RH supported was anything major they could make real
> > > > money out of, at least not compared to what they can make out of the
> > > > DB arena.

> > > Uh? The database project is small FTTB (moneywise) compared to other
> > > things like the kernel, gcc and glibc which are core parts of our base
> > > product.

> > But kernel/gcc/glibc don't comprise a market by themselves.

> But you called them "not major" and something we couldn't make money
> from. We make quite a bit of money on gcc, to give one example -
> through contracts to add features, support for architectures, support
> etc. We are the number one company in that area (remember, Cygnus is
> now part of Red Hat).

> > They are just components of the OS market as a whole (if there is any such
> > thing left anyway).

> But the core on which the rest is built.

I may use a ladder to gather cashew nuts of a tree. They are expensive. That doesn't necessarily mean that ladders are expensive although this may bring some value to their market :o)

cheers,
thalis

Quote:> --
> Trond Eivind Glomsr?d
> Red Hat, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Andrew Sno » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:57:36


Quote:> Yes, but are they going to be collaborating closely with the
> current Pg core devel team or are they going to work on their
> own? The concern is regarding the Cnet article about "Redhat
> forking off eventually with their own pg". Their representative
> said that there is not such intention but given that "verba
> volant, scripta manent", what are the guarantees against that?

> It would really spoil my day to have GM'ed Postgresqls running
> around. I can barely keep up with one, let alone two ;-)

Well, if they fork then we can probably assume Redhat's database will be as
bad as their OS, so there's nothing to worry about ;-) *chuckle*

- Andrew

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

 
 
 

Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

Post by Thalis A. Kalfigopoulo » Wed, 27 Jun 2001 09:29:38



> > Yes, but are they going to be collaborating closely with the
> > current Pg core devel team or are they going to work on their
> > own? The concern is regarding the Cnet article about "Redhat
> > forking off eventually with their own pg". Their representative
> > said that there is not such intention but given that "verba
> > volant, scripta manent", what are the guarantees against that?

> > It would really spoil my day to have GM'ed Postgresqls running
> > around. I can barely keep up with one, let alone two ;-)

> Well, if they fork then we can probably assume Redhat's database will be as
> bad as their OS, so there's nothing to worry about ;-) *chuckle*

That's not true. If you started off with Ygdrassil linux then probably Rh seems too "soft", but they are the ones who brought the crowds closer. And although technical expertise may be desired from "the followers", it is the numbers that make the difference and the people vote for u.s.e.r.f.r.i.e.n.d.l.y. I don't think Volkerding for example would be even remotely interested in doing market research ;-) Besides Rh does more than just bundle a linux distribution together.
Anyway, there are Rh members on the list. They know better what Rh has contributed (probably more than we know of)

cheers,
thalis

Quote:

> - Andrew

> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
 
 
 

1. Process weight (was:Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL)


Now, the question of the week:
Is supporting a thread model for an inefficient OS a desirable thing to do,
when more efficient OS kernels are available such as FreeBSD 4.x and Linux
2.4?  My opinion is that our existing model, when used with a
connection-pooling frontend, is rather efficient.  (Yes, I use a
connection-pooling frontend.  Performance is rather nice, and I don't have to
have a full backend spawned for every page hit.)

In fact, on a Linux box threads show as processes.  While I know that the
kernel actually supports themin a slightly different manner than processes,
they have more similarities than differences.

However, even on OS's where threads are supported, the mechanism to support
those threads must be an efficient one -- not all pthreads libraries are
created equal.  Many are frontends (expensive ones, at that) for plain old
processes.

Does anyone know of a resource that details the 'weight' of processes for our
supported platforms?  [reply off-list -- I'll be glad to summarize responses
to HACKERS, ADMIN, or PORTS, as appropriate, if desired.]
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate

message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

2. Launching a Win95 App from VFP5

3. Red Hat 7.3 and Red Hat 8.0

4. Precision Problem Outlined By dmc@wolfnet.com

5. Please oh Please stop--> RE: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

6. How to get an ordered list of controls on a form?

7. Red Hat DB announced - why not PostgreSQL?

8. Automating Imports in Access

9. PostgreSQL jobs page updated (included Red Hat's search for Database

10. Connecting Ultradev on Win2k to PostgreSQL on Red Hat Linux

11. Red Hat DB = PostgreSQL confirmed !

12. Upgrade to Red Hat Linux 9 broke PostgreSQL

13. PostgreSQL on Red Hat 8