From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | James Rogers <jamesr(at)best(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sponsoring enterprise features |
Date: | 2003-11-21 06:20:53 |
Message-ID: | 9720.1069395653@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> writes:
> Personally, I think the best way is simply to make a post on -hackers
> with a description of what you want to accomplish with a call for
> estimates and proposals. ...
> I say a description of what you want to accomplish because certain
> features are not as useful on PostgreSQL as they are other databases
> (data partitioning being one of them, due to the ability to use partial
> indexes) so you may not achieve what you are expecting.
Right. You can in any case get a great deal of free advice by starting
a pghackers discussion ;-)
It should be noted that "because Oracle does it that way" is a
guaranteed nonstarter as a rationale for any Postgres feature proposal.
There are enough differences between Postgres and Oracle that you will
need to do significant investigation before assuming that an Oracle-
based feature design is appropriate for Postgres. Aside from technical
differences, we have fundamentally different priorities --- one of which
is simplicity of administration. You'll get no buyin on proposals that
tend to create Oracle-like difficulties of installation and tuning.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-11-21 06:24:45 | Re: [HACKERS] More detail on settings for pgavd? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2003-11-21 05:38:34 | code question: rewriteDefine.c |