From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Neil Whelchel <neil(dot)whelchel(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Slow count(*) again... |
Date: | 2010-10-14 19:56:05 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=X46EjYEyJ1jZKCPNci7=SHQqbnj1cHU=uv8Ko@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:22 AM, mark <dvlhntr(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Could this be an interesting test use of https://www.fossexperts.com/ ?
>
> 'Community' driven proposal - multiple people / orgs agree to pay various
> portions? Maybe with multiple funders a reasonable target fund amount could
> be reached.
>
> Just throwing around ideas here.
This is a bit off-topic, but as of now, they're only accepting
proposals for projects to be performed by CommandPrompt itself. So
that doesn't help me much (note the sig).
But in theory it's a good idea. Of course, when and if they open it
up, then what? If more than one developer or company is interested in
a project, who determines who gets to do the work and get paid for it?
If that determination is made by CommandPrompt itself, or if it's
just a free-for-all to see who can get their name on the patch that
ends up being committed, it's going to be hard to get other
people/companies to take it very seriously.
Another problem is that even when they do open it up, they apparently
intend to charge 7.5 - 15% of the contract value as a finder's fee.
That's a lot of money. For a $100 project it's totally reasonable,
but for a $10,000 project it's far more expensive than the value of
the service they're providing can justify. (Let's not even talk about
a $100,000 project.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomáš Pospíšil | 2010-10-14 20:26:41 | XML schema validation |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2010-10-14 19:47:27 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jon Nelson | 2010-10-14 20:00:32 | odd postgresql performance (excessive lseek) |
Previous Message | Tony Capobianco | 2010-10-14 19:43:04 | oracle to psql migration - slow query in postgres |