| From: | MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Timeline |
| Date: | 2013-09-18 17:25:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAFbpF8P=D_RM30rpNAZKJ-tDBak8oEvUd66+8mTR=Qam0Uj9-g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
The sources I listed claim that Paraccel used the PG optimizer in an early
release and uses no PG code today. Another source states that Vertica has
no PG code. Why do you describe these as forks?
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 09/18/2013 11:31 AM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
> > Where are the references that Vertica is sort-of a PG fork and that
> > Paraccel is a PG fork? Quick searches of the interweb finds claims that
> > they are not. Not sure you need to bring doubt to the rest of the details
> > in an excellent slide deck.
>
> That depends on your definition of "fork". There are things which are
> forks which are 90% community Postgres code, and things which are 30%
> Postgres code. What percentage makes something a fork, and what
> doesn't, and why?
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
> http://pgexperts.com
>
--
Mark Callaghan
mdcallag(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-09-18 20:09:52 | Re: PostgreSQL Timeline |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2013-09-18 17:19:09 | Re: PostgreSQL Timeline |