Subject: EnterpriseDB Postgres

From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:14:46 +0200

Hi,

I read about EnterpriseDB PostGres [1] today. Guess since its open 
source it does not contain DynaTune (or what their auto tuning feature 
for EnterpriseDB is called). Might be a nice addition to be able to get 
this unbundled as a binary .. for this distribution? At any rate another 
PostgreSQL distribution, well not another actually its "the first-ever 
professional-grade distribution".

regards,
Lukas

[1] http://www.enterprisedb.com/news_events/press_releases/07_08_07.do

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 17:36:26 +0200

> professional-grade distribution".

It's basically PostgreSQL and regular add-on components installed in an 
unusual way.  Certainly not the first, and arguably not professional.

http://people.planetpostgresql.org/peter/index.php?/archives/9-EnterpriseDB-and-the-Professional-Grade.html

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:44:56 +0100

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> unusual way.  

Unusual?

> Certainly not the first,

Barring pgInstaller, it's the first bundled distribution I recall seeing
available at no cost.

> and arguably not professional.

Thanks. The Windows build was written by me, using the same technology,
and indeed much of our existing code from pgInstaller. Please detail
what is unprofessional so I can fix both packages.

Regards, Dave

---

From: Robert Bernier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:58:01 -0400

Peter,

I appreciate the analysis you reported on your blog.

The PR firm, Prequent, Inc. made the announcement, Might I suggest that 
somebody from this company, http://www.prequent.com/about-us.html, get on the 
advocacy list so as to get up to become sensitized to the salient issues.

Robert

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:03:48 -0700

> Barring pgInstaller, it's the first bundled distribution I recall seeing

Mammoth PostgreSQL was doing this quite some time ago. We found that it
was better to insure support of the surrounding projects so that all the
Pg packages could make it upstream.

That is why we have so many packges in FC (for example now). Go Devrim!

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
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:05:04 -0400 (EDT)

> Barring pgInstaller, it's the first bundled distribution I recall seeing

Agreed, bundled is the issue.  They didn't mention "bundled" in the
press release, but that is kind of a geek word, so I assume that is why
"bundled" wasn't mentioned.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <[email-masked]>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---

From: "Derek Rodner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:06:00 -0400

Peter, Lukas, et al,

What I would like to convey to the community is that this release is not
targeted at you.  You are already Postgres experts.  You all already
know how this works and have intimate knowledge of all of the contrib
modules and add-ons.  You are the experts.

This release is designed for the developer who has never used PostgreSQL
before. He may have heard of it and how it is better than MySQL.  But,
in the past, he has opted for MySQL because it is a simple download and
ready
for deployment in his eyes.  This release is intended for those folks.
For example, take a look at ohloh.net.  MySQL is the 5th highest rated
project.  PostgreSQL is rated much lower.  Don't we want that to be
reversed?  In my entire life, I have always been the underdog and I
thrive on that.  My college basketball team is always the underdog.
EnterpriseDB is the underdog to Oracle.  Postgres is the underdog to
MySQL.  I am starting to get sick of that and want Postgres to stop
being the underdog.  We know we are better than MySQL.  Most of the
world knows we are better than MySQL.  We are tying to bring Postgres to
the masses so they can really understand it.  

Anyone who is already familiar with Postgres or any real DBA is going to
build it himself from the Postgres community and he will be able to do
it quickly.  

While the wording of the press release is cause for concern in the
community because of "first-ever" and "professional grade", we need to
do this for marketing purposes.  If we had said "EnterpriseDB releases
yet another PostgreSQL distribution" then no one would cover it.

We are trying to help PostgreSQL, and in turn, help ourselves.  I would
be interested to see how the hits on www.postgresql.org and
www.slony.info, etc. increased since this announcement.

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peter
Eisentraut
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:36 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: Lukas Kahwe Smith
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] EnterpriseDB Postgres

http://people.planetpostgresql.org/peter/index.php?/archives/9-Enterpris
eDB-and-the-Professional-Grade.html

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
       match

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:06:04 -0700

> advocacy list so as to get up to become sensitized to the salient issues.

Doubtful. ALthough EDB has shown a willingness to be very attentive,
their PR firm is obviously clueless when it comes to the salient issues
and frankly, it is EDBs responsibility to insure the QA.

Regardless, this is just once again marketing speak and we shouldn't
really concern ourselves with it as long as they are not dissing the
probject.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
> 

- --

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:07:26 -0700

>> It's basically PostgreSQL and regular add-on components installed in an 

It is certainly unusual to not use a standard package format
(rpm,deb,pkg). Although I have to double check if PeterE is actually
correct on his linux filesystem standard comment because as I recall non
standard packages are supposed to go into /opt .

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:08:24 -0700

> professional-grade distribution".

If it is actually the first, I would wonder what all the other
distributions are doing and have been doing before EDB even existed ;)
alas go Marketing!

Joshua D. Drake

> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
> 

- --

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:11:23 +0100

> Pg packages could make it upstream.

You were including server, admin tools and drivers in a point 'n' click
distro-independent installer? I thought Mammoth was a rebranded server
(now community standard).

> That is why we have so many packges in FC (for example now). Go Devrim!

Absolutely - and we hope that will continue, just as I will be
continuing with pgInstaller.

The EDB Postgres distros are aimed squarely at new users and those that
want a quick and easy install - we don't want them to have to understand
all the contrib module options in pgInstaller, or figure out the right
combinations of RPMs (not forgetting the libpq-compat one!), and then
install and configure a webserver, find some admin tools, work out where
the driver websites are etc.

We want these users to just download, run and get hooked. Later, when
they decide to deploy, thats when they might choose to switch to the RPM
distros or pgInstaller, so they can tailor their production systems to
their precise needs.

Regards, Dave

---

From: "Derek Rodner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:11:47 -0400

Peter, Lukas, et al,

Derek M. Rodner

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:17:35 +0100

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> (rpm,deb,pkg). 

I must admit I kinda hat my Win32 hat on when I read that, and haven't
really looked at the Linux installer in detail.

Outside of the open source world it is far more normal to have
distro-independent installers - and this is specifically what we wanted
because we want to get PostgreSQL on as many machines as possible.

> Although I have to double check if PeterE is actually

That was my recollection as well. I guess it is a little odd to have the
sub components in the PostgreSQL installation root, but we do similarly
wierd things in pginstaller to make everything work as it should without
having lots of copies of libpq and friends.

The important thing to note is that it is entirely self contained, won't
futz up your filesystem with fluff, and can be uninstalled.

/D

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:29:18 -0400 (EDT)

I appreciate Derek's candor in talking about why the press release was
structured the way it was.

This brings up something I have realized recently.  There is no question
in my mind that EnterprseDB's many mentions of PostgreSQL in their press
releases has greatly helped PostgreSQL to become more visible.  Not that
this wouldn't have happened on its own, but with EnterpriseDB's help, it
has happened faster.

The other good news is that we are getting better at PR ourselves, and I
think more companies are willing to help us do PR, so we are moving into
a phase where we aren't as "off in our own corner" as we were before.

Can we get Tom Lane on the cover of ComputerWorld?  ;-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:30:28 -0700

> (now community standard).

No it was a complete distribution. Not it was not point in click well
except that you could use *standard* tools ;) such as yum/apt etc.. (we
never did get yum working quite right).

> combinations of RPMs (not forgetting the libpq-compat one!),

And breaking package management in the process. I am not trying to start
a war here, but really, if it was done correctly you would have set up
and apt server, a yum server etc... which is much more in line with the
goal I would think.

> distros or pgInstaller, so they can tailor their production systems to

But that won't happen. Instead the users will be contained in the bubble
that is the installer package (any not just EDB) and then when we say,
download the latest RPMs, debs, use apt, use ports.. whatever, they go
what? Please repeat.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:36:44 +0200

> yet another PostgreSQL distribution" then no one would cover it.

Well, at least you are admitting that you are not telling the truth.

I will suggest, however, that knowingly wrong material should not be posted on 
the postgresql.org web site any longer.

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:37:00 +0200

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 09:30:28AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Dave Page wrote:
> >>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 

I thought it was RPM only? Did it work on slackware for example?

> And breaking package management in the process. I am not trying to start

Uh, I haven't checked the installer on linux, but I was under the
impression that everything went in dedicated directory in /opt. How can
that break the package manager?

Sure you can't *use* the package manager - just like you acn't use it if
you install Oracle or DB2.

> and apt server, a yum server etc... which is much more in line with the

I assume the whole package is directed at people who do not want to have to
reconfigure their yum/apt/whatever just to be able to try something out.

> download the latest RPMs, debs, use apt, use ports.. whatever, they go

I'd be very surprised if anybody who would go off and manually download the
binaries otherwise will use this distro. And I'd be surprised if users who
are used to using yum/apt/whatever will do that, they'll just use the one
they're used to. We're talking *new* users here.

(Though personally, I'd prefer a distro that doesn't mess around with the
packages like the debian one does for example. Not sure if this one fits,
but hey, I build from source all the time anyway)

//Magnus

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:37:28 -0700

> being the underdog.  We know we are better than MySQL.  Most of the

I was with you, until right here. I think you have vastly misestimated
the market. I will concur that PostgreSQL is the underdog to MySQL in
one very specific sense:

The ignorant and the code monkey.

The knowledgable (including many of the fortune 5000) won't touch MySQL
because it is broke, where PostgreSQL isn't.

Now all that being said, there is zero argument that if you can get all
the people running Ubuntu, wanting to run PostgreSQL that our community
will grow. However I wonder, seriously how much of our community would
be willing to deal with that level of newness.

A good portion of our community are DBMS snobs. They have no basis in
reality and are more interested in what is "right" versus what actually
"works".

Is that bad? I don't know, sometimes, sometimes not.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
- --

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:39:23 -0700

> because we want to get PostgreSQL on as many machines as possible.

Yes but they still install the right way :). (e.g; windows will still be
able to use add/remove programs).

> futz up your filesystem with fluff, and can be uninstalled.

Until you get a newbie that links to it the wrong way.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: "Derek Rodner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:39:52 -0400

I am not saying we did not tell the truth and we absolutely did.  This is the first distribution for Postgres that is packaged in this fashion with a graphical installer and the like.  The title of that press release is accurate.

Derek M. Rodner

---

From: "Derek Rodner" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:42:27 -0400

Josh,

Actually, that is it exactly.  You have summed it up so well when you
said:
" However I wonder, seriously how much of our community would
be willing to deal with that level of newness.

Is that bad? I don't know, sometimes, sometimes not."

We are trying to make it easy for the newbies and that is what this new
distribution and site are designed for!!!!!

As for the comment about the Fortune 1000?  They ALL RUN MySQL
somewhere.  We know.  We have talked to them.  They actually recognize
that it is not enterprise-class, etc.  but, it was free and easy to use.

Derek M. Rodner

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:37 AM
To: Derek Rodner
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] EnterpriseDB Postgres

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake
- --

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:43:49 -0700

> Can we get Tom Lane on the cover of ComputerWorld?  ;-)

To follow this, every time EDB gets press, we get a new customer (and no
I am not being sarcastic). The press helps everyone :)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:44:53 +0200

> The ignorant and the code monkey.

I assume you claim the press is ignorant? Because they're certainly not
codemonkeys ;-) 
Sure, they may be, but we still need them, and a press release is much 
directed at the press - they won't report it if they don't find it 
interesting. And *they* haven't looked over mysql *or* postgresql 
enough to know the difference.

//Magnus

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:45:02 -0700

> I thought it was RPM only? Did it work on slackware for example?

No we had debs too, and it could work on slackware should anyone have
actually asked for it ;)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:47:37 +0200

> Barring pgInstaller, it's the first bundled distribution I recall seeing

That was not the topic of the announcement, however.

> what is unprofessional so I can fix both packages.

I mentioned my concerns in the blog entry.  The installer is actually pretty 
neat, certainly newbie-friendly, and a lot better than the installer for 
EnterpriseDB proper.  There is no reason given, however, that the 
label "professional" is in any way warranted.  But I am aware that that was 
not your idea anyway.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:48:11 -0700

> I am not saying we did not tell the truth and we absolutely did.  This is the first distribution for Postgres that is packaged in this fashion with a graphical installer and the like.  The title of…

Derek you are arguing the marketing truth versus the pedantic truth.
This is not an argument you can win :) The problem is simple your
wording "implies" certain things that are certainly not true.

I agree with you that you didn't explicitly state something that is not
true, but your "implication" is something that the community will always
take exception with.

That is the way it works. I would also note that you are arguing a
marketing argument to a bunch of engineers ;) You will not convince them.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:49:46 -0700

> that it is not enterprise-class, etc.  but, it was free and easy to use.

They don't run it where they would be running Oracle. They do run
PostgreSQL in those spots. Oh and as a sticking point, I said Fortune
5000 ;)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 18:52:55 +0200

> standard packages are supposed to go into /opt .

I just want to clarify that I did not mean "This package violates the Linux 
File System Hierarchy Standard" (which it does, but not in an important way), 
but rather that it lays out the files in a manner that is unusual for what I 
estimate to be the average Linux administrator.

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:07:14 +0200

Am Mittwoch, 8. August 2007 18:39 schrieb Derek Rodner:
> I am not saying we did not tell the truth and we absolutely did.  This is
> the first distribution for Postgres that is packaged in this fashion with a
> graphical installer and the like.  The title of that press release is
> accurate.

The title of the press release is "EnterpriseDB Announces First-Ever 
Professional-Grade PostgreSQL Distribution for Linux".  Nothing in the entire 
press release even mentions a "graphical" installer.

In at least one of the meanings "made for profit", "made by a professional", 
or "exhibiting the technical standards of a profession", this is probably 
a "professional" distribution, but not the first such.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:16:56 -0700

> the postgresql.org web site any longer.

How do we make that determination?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Lukas Kahwe Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:18:40 +0200

> I am not saying we did not tell the truth and we absolutely did.  This is the first distribution for Postgres that is packaged in this fashion with a graphical installer and the like.  The title of…

Or in other words this is the first distribution labeled "EnterpriseDB 
Postgres". If you put enough and's nto your explanation it will 
eventually be first. Though these and's were not in your press release.

I do think this language harms PostgreSQL because it makes it sound like 
previously it was only available in unprofessional packaging, which 
implies this PostgreSQL thing just for the first time made it out of the 
world of "oh this is fun to hack on" stage and anyone doing anything 
with a previous PostgreSQL distro was either toying or on the absolute 
bleeding edge (or over the edge).

I find this release especially disturbing since we just went over this a 
few weeks ago. But I guess its time to stop trying to fix this behavior, 
its more a question of just accepting it. While its mighty annoying, I 
guess it does not offset the good things EDB contributes.

So it goes.

regards,
Lukas

---

From: Lewis Cunningham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:31:01 -0700 (PDT)

> wording "implies" certain things that are certainly not true.

Sort of like a company calling itself, "THE PostgreSQL Company"?

LewisC

-----------------------------------------------------------
Lewis R Cunningham

An Expert's Guide to Oracle Technology
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/oracle/guide/

LewisC's Random Thoughts
http://lewiscsrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/

EnterpriseDB: The Definitive Reference
http://tinyurl.com/39246e
----------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Joshua_Kramer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 13:43:34 -0400 (EDT)

> previously it was only available in unprofessional packaging, which implies

Erg, I have a dumb question.  What does this package provide over and 
above the standard PG .msi's available for Windows?  Is it merely a 
consistency so that Linux newbies can get an easy Postgres package too?

I'm just wondering.  I would beleive that those inclined to develop using 
MySQL would also be inclined to develop under Windows - I didn't find it 
difficult at all to install PG 8.2.4 or pgAdminIII on my C5 boxes...

Cheers,
-J

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:48:44 -0700

> Sort of like a company calling itself, "THE PostgreSQL Company"?

As EDB said, If CMD does't use it, they will ;).

There are plenty other offenses that are much more important to be
focusing on.

Oh and nice to see you on the list. Perhaps your blogs will be better
informed about the community now.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> 

- --

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:12:17 +0100

> but hey, I build from source all the time anyway)

The packages are entirely standard (with the exception of the odd
wrapper script to set the library paths etc - similar to what we do on
Windows to set the codepage etc.).

The only exception at the moment is the version of pgAdmin in the
Windows build. I used an unoffical 1.8 beta 2.5 because I wanted to get
the pl/pgsql debugger working out of the box.

/D

---

From: Lewis Cunningham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:14:27 -0700 (PDT)

> informed about the community now.

Thanks.  I'll try.  ;-)

LewisC

LewisC's Random Thoughts

---

From: "Mike Ellsworth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:16:32 -0400

> How do we make that determination?

I was under the impression that www scrutinizes all Press Releases prior to
posting to the site.  Not true?

It would seem to make more sense to do so as issues such as this could be
worked out privately.
Presoak the laundry before hanging on the line.  Otherwise, neighbors may
gossip.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:24:21 -0700

> posting to the site.  Not true?

Well sure but... This particular release is really difficult. Blatant
lies are one thing but seem my comment about marketing truth versus
pedantic truth.

An engineer shouldn't be making a determination if a marketing truth is
valid.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:28:22 +0100

Joshua_Kramer wrote:
> 
>> I do think this language harms PostgreSQL because it makes it sound
>> like previously it was only available in unprofessional packaging,
>> which implies
> 
> I'm just wondering.  I would beleive that those inclined to develop
> using MySQL would also be inclined to develop under Windows - I didn't
> find it difficult at all to install PG 8.2.4 or pgAdminIII on my C5
> boxes...

As a disclaimer, I build both the PG msi's and I produced the one thats
available from postgres.enterprisedb.com (though I'm handing the
maintenance of that over to another team).

The EDB installer has a number of differences. For the people here, they
will largely be uninteresting (bar 2 or 3, which will likely be in PG
8.3) -

- Is it vastly simplified. For example, a number of the installer steps
are gone, including the grid of checkboxes for contrib modules. The
feature selection tree has also been reduced to 3 core elements.

- It has a few less pieces of bundled software - in particular, no
pl/java, and no oledb.

- It will (in the next version) include Apache, PHP and phpPgAdmin as an
option.

- It includes pgAdmin 1.8 beta 2(.5), and the debugger plugin to allow
pl/pgsql debugging.

- It is Vista compatible.

- It includes a simple demo database.

- pgAgent is pre-installed (but needs a pgpass.conf file which we don't
silently create).

There's probably something else I forgot, but that's about it.

Regards, Dave.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:32:15 +0100

Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> I was under the impression that www scrutinizes all Press Releases prior
> to posting to the site.  Not true?

We do. We check them for frequency of posting from a single company (so
noone floods the news pages), relevancy and appropriateness. We don't
check they are factually accurate, or try to second guess the intent of
the companies posting them.

And yes, I did approve that one - despite my employer it meets all our
agreed acceptance criteria.

Regards, Dave.

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:43:40 +0100

> never did get yum working quite right).

OK

> and apt server, a yum server etc... which is much more in line with the

It doesn't break it, it sits entirely outside of it, allowing it to run
on pretty much any vaguely recent distro. You mention youself that you
never really got Yum to work properly - imagine the effort it would take
to cover all the major distros using the native package management. Even
Devrim's job is complex enough just covering the Redhat distros for the
core server, and pgAdmin at different times.

This is why the likes of Oracle and IBM use similar non-specific
installera.

> that is the installer package (any not just EDB) and then when we say,

Better that than they not use PostgreSQL at all.

> download the latest RPMs, debs, use apt, use ports.. whatever, they go

Our intent is to produce new builds on the community schedule, as well
as additional point releases to pick up new versions of Apache, PHP,
Slony, pgAdmin etc. I can pretty much guarantee they'll be able to
upgrade to a newer version as quickly, if not more quickly than the user
of an OS distribution.

Regards, Dave

---

From: Chris Browne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:43:57 -0400

> the postgresql.org web site any longer.

How about we leave it thus...

It *is* true to say that this is the first professional grade release
of _EnterpriseDB PostgreSQL_.

It may be that they'll discover improvements that can be made to it to
make it "even more professional," at which point they could rename it
_EnterpriseDB PostgreSQL Pro_ and have another press release...
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="linuxfinances.info" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/emacs.html
Ubuntu is an ancient African word, meaning "can't configure Debian"

---

From: "Mike Ellsworth" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:49:43 -0400

> agreed acceptance criteria.

Not pointing a finger in any direction, particularly at you Dave.  My point
was that if it meets the criteria, then there should be no issue -- or
thread.  If there is a problem with the criteria or vetting process, then
focus should be redirected to *that* as an issue.

Praise in public, criticize in private.  Particularly when it's 'one of our
own'.

Thanks,
Mike

---

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:53:50 +0200

> This is why the likes of Oracle and IBM use similar non-specific

actually oracle has packages for their express edition that work quite
nice on a number of platforms:

http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/database/xe/htdocs/102xelinsoft.html

> upgrade to a newer version as quickly, if not more quickly than the user

the problem comes if you need the OS or generally apps to interact with
the database. Most distributions have a large number of packages and a
lot of them depend on say libpq or even say the postgresql client utils.
Since the OS has no clue about your "independent" package it will
usually install their own copy which could cause even more confusion
(and problems) for some users(like ending up with two different versions
of psql in the simplest case).
This is probably not that much a problem on Windows (which does not have
that kind of packaging usually) but I guess it could be on other platforms.

Stefan

---

From: David Fetter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 11:59:20 -0700

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 07:32:15PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> > I was under the impression that www scrutinizes all Press Releases
> > prior to posting to the site.  Not true?
> 
> We do. We check them for frequency of posting from a single company
> (so noone floods the news pages), relevancy and appropriateness. We
> don't check they are factually accurate, or try to second guess the
> intent of the companies posting them.
> 
> And yes, I did approve that one - despite my employer it meets all
> our agreed acceptance criteria.

Dave, 

I know you mean well, but in this case, you created, at best, the
appearance of a conflict of interest.  Next time, please ask somebody
not employed at EnterpriseDB to review such pieces.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <[email-masked]> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

---

From: Steve Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:02:43 -0700

On Aug 8, 2007, at 11:49 AM, Mike Ellsworth wrote:
>
> Praise in public, criticize in private.

This should be the main take away from this thread.

> Particularly when it's 'one of our own'.
>

That too.

Cheers,
   Steve

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:09:39 -0700

> not employed at EnterpriseDB to review such pieces.

Actually this is probably a good idea in general. It isn't a question of
inappropriateness but the appearance of thus by *any* member. We have
quite a few prominent members employed by several prominent postgresql
companies.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:10:40 -0700

>> Particularly when it's 'one of our own'.

There is nothing wrong with public constructive criticism. The problem
is when people turn it into a war. I have zero problem with public
criticism of CMD that is kind of the FOSS way.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> 
>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> 

- --

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:18:38 +0100

> quite a few prominent members employed by several prominent postgresql

I don't necessarily disagree, and in fact did refuse to post it and
approve it myself (hence why it came from Peter Yarrow).

However, as I know I subjected it to the same rules as we apply to all
articles, I didn't see a problem approving it myself. I've had to deal
with these conflicts of interest for years on the website - for example,
dealing with news relating to other admin tools, especially those from
one particular company who like to try to flood us with postings from
time to time.

If people want to make 'no self approval of your or your companies
items' a new moderation rule, I have no problem with that.

Regards, Dave.

---

From: Steve Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:24:46 -0700

> criticism of CMD that is kind of the FOSS way.

True. But it would be good if everyone involved remembers that
this is a public forum, and keeps the criticism as professional,
constructive (and ideally, not misquotable out of context) as much
as possible.

Convincing DBAs at an Oracle-only company that PG is a solid,
professionally maintained and supported application is tricky
enough without an impression of public infighting amongst
ourselves.

Cheers,
   Steve

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:24:59 +0100

> criticism of CMD that is kind of the FOSS way.

Agreed 100%. If I've done something that others consider to be
unacceptable for example, I want to know about it, and I'd like people
to know I know about it. I will then do what I can to put it right.

I think the difficulty perhaps comes when disagreements become more
intense - JD and I for example often clash antlers, but certainly from
my side there is no ill-will intended (in fact I'm looking forward to
the day we finally meet and I can buy him a beer), just the desire to
better what we're collectively doing.

Anyhoo, this is getting off-topic...

/D

---

From: David Fetter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 12:30:00 -0700

> items' a new moderation rule, I have no problem with that.

Good idea.  We have enough people and enough diversity that making
this explicit in the moderation rules is reasonable. :)

Speaking of which, I'd love to figure out a system whereby I can
avoid (the appearance of) similar conflicts of interest in the
PostgreSQL Weekly News, as I have been in a position to announce
things I've done, are doing, etc., and have never felt comfortable
about it.  I guess that's a subject for another thread, though.

Cheers,
David.

Remember to vote!

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 21:35:50 +0200

> This is why the likes of Oracle and IBM use similar non-specific

And the fact that PostgreSQL does not require such nonsense is a major 
selling point.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:41:23 -0700

> intense - JD and I for example often clash antlers,

Are you saying I have antlers buddy! :)

> but certainly from

None whatsoever, just two of the most intelligent, good looking
PostgreSQL guys occasionally vying for a win over the other ;)

> better what we're collectively doing.

Agree 100%, I would be happy to let you buy me several beers.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:50:29 +0100

> Are you saying I have antlers buddy! :)

I thought everyone knew already?

> PostgreSQL guys occasionally vying for a win over the other ;)

Well, I was trying to be modest, but seeing as you put it that way :-)

> Agree 100%, I would be happy to let you buy me several beers.

I said 'a' beer. I don't like you that much :-)

/D

---

From: Magnus Hagander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:15:53 +0200

> about it.  I guess that's a subject for another thread, though.

Just write it in German and send it to Andreas. He'll translate it back
into English if he thinks it's good.

//Magnus

---

From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:40:03 -0000

> of _EnterpriseDB PostgreSQL_.

Actually, it's just "EnterpriseDB Postgres", according to the site.

Guess they figured one mixed cap name was enough. That makes 
me happy, as a strong supporter of us officially dropping the 
"SQL" part of PostgreSQL and just using the name everyone ends 
up using anyway. :)

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane [email-masked]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200708081638
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

---

From: Andreas Pflug <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 23:05:18 +0200

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> ..as a strong supporter of us officially dropping the

Well that's probably controversal and not an issue to be discussed
piggy-backed on an EDB thread.

Regards,
Andreas

---

From: Decibel! <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:07:08 -0500

> will largely be uninteresting (bar 2 or 3, which will likely be in PG

Given the target of newbies, something we should probably add to that
list is turning autovacuum on. Leaving that off is going to leave a bad
taste in the mouth of a lot of folks, far worse than our minimalist
configuration.
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        [email-masked]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:08:52 +0100

> "SQL" part of PostgreSQL and just using the name everyone ends

Yeah, that was a conscious decision. I've lost count of the number of
speelings I've seen of Postgrays SQL.

/D

---

From: Decibel! <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:09:32 -0500

> I said 'a' beer. I don't like you that much :-)

Be careful Dave... next you know he'll be selling you free $5 beers.
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        [email-masked]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---

From: Dave Page <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:17:03 +0100

> taste in the mouth of a lot of folks, far worse than our minimalist

We've always done that on the Windows community builds (well, since 8.1).

/D

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:34:23 -0700

> Be careful Dave... next you know he'll be selling you free $5 beers.

Hey we raised over 1k thank you very much :)

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:38:18 +0200

Decibel! wrote:
> list is turning autovacuum on. Leaving that off is going to leave a
> bad taste in the mouth of a lot of folks, far worse than our
> minimalist configuration.

Or alternatively, the bad taste may stem from someone unilaterally 
overriding configuration decisions consciously made by the developers.

---

From: Decibel! <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 16:47:42 -0500

> overriding configuration decisions consciously made by the developers.

Well, you mentioned lack of vacuuming twice in your blog, so you're the
last person I expected to object to this.

I don't see how leaving autovacuum turned off can be a good idea in a
package that's specifically meant to be easy.

"Congratulations, you've just installed Postgres! Oh, wait... one more
thing... go edit this file by hand otherwise your performance will suck
as soon as you start throwing any real data at the database."
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        [email-masked]
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:37:30 -0400 (EDT)

> not employed at EnterpriseDB to review such pieces.

We don't have the manpower to insulate ourselves like this.  I apply
EnterpriseDB patches, and have no intention of stopping.

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 20:45:21 -0400 (EDT)

> about it.  I guess that's a subject for another thread, though.

Disagree.  We are not making policy over one person's suggestion here,
and taken to an extreem, this will slow us down, with zero cases of
conficts actually causing problems.  I would prefer people act
responsibly rather than add more rules.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:07:43 -0700

> EnterpriseDB patches, and have no intention of stopping.

We aren't really talking about patches here. We are talking about news
items and we have *plenty* of manpower in that instance.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 18:08:39 -0700

> responsibly rather than add more rules.

Easy Bruce, this is something that the community is discussing and
appears to agree with. Although I do think the PostgreSQL Weekly News on
is kind of offtopic.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: David Fetter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:51:55 -0700

> appears to agree with. Although I do think the PostgreSQL Weekly News on

Which is why I called for another thread. :)

Cheers,
David.

Remember to vote!

---

From: David Fetter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 19:56:13 -0700

On Wed, Aug 08, 2007 at 08:37:30PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > I was under the impression that www scrutinizes all Press
> > > > Releases prior to posting to the site.  Not true?
> > > 
> > > We do. We check them for frequency of posting from a single
> > > company (so noone floods the news pages), relevancy and
> > > appropriateness. We don't check they are factually accurate, or
> > > try to second guess the intent of the companies posting them.
> > > 
> > > And yes, I did approve that one - despite my employer it meets
> > > all our agreed acceptance criteria.
> > 
> > Dave, 
> > 
> > appearance of a conflict of interest.  Next time, please ask
> > somebody not employed at EnterpriseDB to review such pieces.
> 

The subject wasn't patches, so I'm calling straw man on this.  Face
it, Momjian, you don't hold the sway you used to, nor will you ever
again.  Back off.

Cheers,
David.

Remember to vote!

---

From: "Jonah H. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:12:02 -0400

> it, Momjian, you don't hold the sway you used to, nor will you ever

David,

There's no need to get personal here.  Just chill.

-- 
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | [email-masked]
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:25:20 -0700

> There's no need to get personal here.  Just chill.

At this point, this is way off topic. Let's move this to pgsql-www where
the topic at hand is news/events/pr procedures...

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

---

From: "Jonah H. Harris" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 23:25:21 -0400

> the topic at hand is news/events/pr procedures...

Agreed.  Thanks.

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:08:08 -0700

All,

> this explicit in the moderation rules is reasonable. :)

I don't have a problem with that.  Actually I usually try to get someone from 
-WWW to approve anything I post, including stuff for the Project.  Otherwise 
I never know what stupid cut-and-paste errors I might miss.

I'll point out though that our policy on News/Events/Training postings has 
always been one of permissiveness.  For example, there has been an ongoing 
one-upsmanship in the Training postings for the last 6 months and WWW has 
refused to get involved in constraining it.  If we started deciding that we'd 
block certain kinds of news posts (like those with too much hyperbole) then 
that would be a major change of direction for our website approval policy.  
It would also make it highly politicized.

> about it.  I guess that's a subject for another thread, though.

I haven't seen a problem except that I'm not keen on your reporting on 
flamewars, even resolved ones.  But that's an editorial decision that you and 
I will continue to disagree on.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: Josh Berkus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 22:12:12 -0700

David, Bruce,

> it, Momjian, you don't hold the sway you used to, nor will you ever

Hey, both of you calm down.  This is a fairly reasonable process discussion 
and there is no call for either of you to get emotional about it.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---

From: Peter Eisentraut <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 10:30:12 +0200

> package that's specifically meant to be easy.

It's more of a general observation.  Several downstream distributors turned 
autovacuum on by default some time ago, their decision process having been 
something like, "Automatic vacuum? Cool!".  There are certainly cases where 
enabling autovacuum by default is reasonable.  But remember the lengthy 
discussion we had before the 8.2 release about whether to turn it on, and the 
extensive development necessary for 8.3 to make enabling it by default safe.  
There was clearly more thought being put into it than some of the 
distributors did.

---

From: Robert Treat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 12:20:25 -0400

> (now community standard).

FWIW, BitRock has been doing a verson of this for a little while (single 
download, graphical install, admin tool, works across linux distros)

http://bitrock.com/download_webstacks_download.html

-- 
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

---

From: Bruce Momjian <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 12:31:31 -0400 (EDT)

> it, Momjian, you don't hold the sway you used to, nor will you ever

I am unsure of David's purpose in posting this.  I assume he was trying
to assert his will and somehow scare me off.  However, the effect was to
renew doubts about his ability to function effectively in the community.

FYI, David is a key member in assisting our PostgreSQL user base.  Not
only does he do the PostgreSQL Weekly News (which is a huge job), but he
tirelessly works on our IRC channel and attends conferences to talk
about PostgreSQL.  (He is in Argentina now.)  These are key activities
in promoting PostgreSQL adoption.

---

From: "Joshua D. Drake" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 09:47:32 -0700

> in promoting PostgreSQL adoption.

Both of you, to your corners and count to 10. This is ridiculous.

1. This is offtopic, I already moved the topic to pgsql-www.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-08/msg00098.php

2. This is offtopic, I already moved the topic to pgsql-www.

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-www/2007-08/msg00098.php

3. Both of you take your personal beefs elsewhere.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --