From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: History question |
Date: | 2001-11-30 17:38:42 |
Message-ID: | 200111301738.fAUHcgw17665@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > > While surfing through our web page I found some references about Postgres
> > > (the original Berkley project) starting as Ingres. Now I wonder whether we
> > > or let's say the original Postgres project still used Ingres or parts
> > > thereof.
> >
> > It doesn't, and never did. Not sure how that impression got started,
> > other than some confusion over "based on" vs "successor".
> >
> > Where exactly did you find this on the web site? We should rephrase
> > it...
>
> The history paper (the formatting was messed up with the copy/paste):
Yes, no code went from Ingres to Postgres. However, Stonebraker was the
same, and the team was probably similar. The text in the first
chapter of my book is a little clearer, calling Ingres an ancestor of
Postgres. There is a link between them, it is just hard to clearly
specify it without going into all sorts of contortions in the text. I
wonder if we should remove the old history article and put the first
chapter of my book in there instead. It is the same content, but
updated.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-30 17:45:06 | Re: FW: [ppa-dev] Severe bug in debian - phppgadmin opensup |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-11-30 17:29:31 | Re: History question |