Nextgres?

Hi Jonah,

Was just looking around your company website, and it mentions a product
called "Nextgres" which looks interesting :

http://www.nightstarcorporation.com/?op=products

How do you guys implement the PostgreSQL SQL parser as well as the
Interbase and Oracle parsers? Is it like an adaption of PostgreSQL with
addons or something? Also it mentions its compatible with PostgreSQL
7.2.2, so I'm wondering if that's a typo or something.

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

"Jonah H. Harris" wrote:
>
> Comparing PGSQL to MySQL is like apples to oranges. I don't see why one
> would want to take a great project and ORDBMS such as PGSQL and make a
> desktop version of it. When a desktop version is completely opposite of
> what PGSQL is, a commercial-grade RDBMS. Sure it lacks some of the areas
> when compared to Oracle and SQL Server... but I don't see how the PGSQL team
> is going to get as much money as Oracle/Microsoft to develop, perform R&D,
> and compete against commercial rivals. Yet, I have never seen an
> open-source database system as good as PGSQL, especially being as it is
> developed on a volunteer basis.
>
> As far as MySQL goes, they can have their easy-to-install and manage
> "features". I was on the MySQL-dev team for three months trying to convince
> Monty, Sasha, and others that MySQL needed features found in commercial
> systems (triggers, stored procs, transactions, constraints, etc.) They
> explicitly and rudely told me that MySQL wasn't developed to perform in
> these areas and to go elsewhere. Ever since then, I've been using PGSQL in
> a production basis. The argument for easy-to-install systems is common with
> many MySQL users, and those who don't understand how databases work. Sure
> it would be nice to have the system do complete self-tuning but in reality,
> the DBA should know how to make the database perform better under different
> situations. And, as for ease-of-install, I can download the PGSQL package
> for my OpenBSD boxes and it works perfectly, same on CYGWIN. If I want to
> tune it, I can.
>
> The objective of a good RDBMS is to allow fast access to data while also
> maintaining data integrity (ACID properties). I personally think that
> dumbing-down database systems only causes more problems. Look at Microsoft
> and NT/2K/XP. Now there are MCSEs all over the place acting like they are
> network admins because they can point-and-click to start a IIS service.
> Oooh, ahh. I would rather be on UNIX where I need to know exactly what's
> going on. And, UNIX users don't just jump up and blame the software when
> something goes wrong... as often happens with Windows and Access. The same
> follows with many MySQL users I've encountered. They don't have to do
> anything with the system, but consider themselves experts. With all my
> Oracle, SQL Server, and PostgreSQL boxes, I personally tune them to do what
> tasks are designated for them. I think PGSQL, as the project goes, is just
> fine as it is. A little commercial support and marketing could greatly
> assist in furthering the usage of PGSQL, true. If the group agrees that
> this would be a good idea, then I would be willing to do this. I also think
> it would be a good idea to get a PostgreSQL foundation or similar non-profit
> that could accept donations, etc. to further development. Don't dumb down
> the system and create a limited version just for people that want an
> open-source Access... they can use MySQL for that. Just my rant.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Jonah H. Harris, Chairman/CEO
> NightStar Corporation
> "One company, one world, one BIG difference!"
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org