Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Hat DB = PostgreSQL - Confirmed

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the my-money-was-on-Access95 dept.

Red Hat Software 163

WeaselOne writes: "Okay, it's on the record. This Cnet story cites an Aberdeen analyst as confirming that the Red Hat database will, in fact, be PostgreSQL. Also has some interesting stuff about why they didn't just partner with Great Bridge."

cancel ×

163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

shogun (657) | more than 13 years ago | (#131467)

If you are expecting money or fame DON'T RELEASE YOUR CODE UNDER THE GPL. Choose another license. Jiminey H. Christmas.

You have no clue why people release code under the GPL do you?

This is interesting news... (2)

tzanger (1575) | more than 13 years ago | (#131468)

I've been a die-hard PostgreSQL fan for quite some time now, often having to defend my decision to go with a more robust database than the first answer off almost everyone's tongue: MySQL.

I'd like if someone could help clarify what is exactly happenning though. Great Bridge employs half the Postgres developers. They claim to have a "commercially QA-tested" version of Postgres -- what exactly is this? What does it do or not do that the stock PostgreSQL does or does not do? And now along comes Red Hat -- perhaps my least favoured distribution of all -- and says it's going to be packaging PostgreSQL in with their distro, claiming to make enhancements that make it faster with Linux. What exactly are these guys planning? Hopefully not more distro-specific kernels!

Personally I'd love to see anyone come with a way to do an online backup of PostgreSQL's databases. The current favourite is to do a pg_dumpall -o and gzip/bzip2 it out to tape. I really couldn't give a rat's ass if PostgreSQL suddenly had .RPMs to install rather than compile from source but the tighter integration with Linux intriguing. Hopefully it will be done right.

Does anyone have any more information either on what Great Bridge's or Red Hat's versions of PosgreSQL have over the normal releases?

Re:You're forgetting JDBC, which SQL Server lacks (2)

Mithrandir (3459) | more than 13 years ago | (#131475)

Since SQL Server doesn't provide good JDBC support (and 3rd party JDBC drivers for SQL Server are extremely expensive) it doesn't have a chance.

Perhaps you might want to look at the J2EE reference implementation [sun.com] , which is free. Right up front in the readme are the 3 supplied drivers - Oracle, Cloudscape and SQL Server v7.0. They've been there for a couple of years at least (1.2 release was middle-late 1999 IIRC). And, being a reference implementation, those drivers have to support the full specication - including XA transaction support. So, the drivers are hardly crap, maybe just not well optimised enough or that the underlying database is crap.

It's the name (1)

madprof (4723) | more than 13 years ago | (#131476)

People use stuff cos they know the name. The very smart and knowledgable guy at my university who teaches database theory recommended MySQL to some people when they asked him about installing stuff on their own machines. I showed them PostgreSQL and they all agreed it was more feature-filled.
So why did he recommend MySQL? He'd heard of it, and hadn't heard of PostgreSQL.
There is little I've needed PostgreSQL to do that it hasn't done when implementing databases for commercial purposes.

Re:Why not MySQL?? (2)

madprof (4723) | more than 13 years ago | (#131477)

By that logic Red Hat should be selling versions of Windows cos it's more popular.
MySQL has speed advantages in certain conditions, as does PostgreSQL, but Red Hat need features that enable them to compete.

Yes, but... (4)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 13 years ago | (#131478)

... will the EULA prevent posting benchmarks???

--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.

Re:selling licenses? (2)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 13 years ago | (#131482)

Umm, there's nothing preventing them from selling it under the GPL.

A company I work for may end up selling GPL server software at a decently high price. Companies will pay it. They're used to paying for software.

Re:This was smart to compete agaisn't SQL server (3)

rhavyn (12490) | more than 13 years ago | (#131485)

Just a note about the PHPBuilder.com article. Mysql has a problem with 30 concurrent users. This is a bit different than 30 users. 30 people can be connected at one time and mysql doesn't even sweat ... but when you get 30 concurrent queries, it starts to fall apart.

For a pretty normal website, 30 concurrent connections can get you 500,000 - 1.5 million hits a day (depending on your traffic patterns ... if you get all your hits all within 6 hours think low end of the scale ... if it's pretty well spread out across the day, think high end of the scale). As most mysql users point out, mysql isn't meant to be used in super high load situations and this assessment backs that fact up.

Now, I use mostly postgresql where I work (I need the transaction support and mysql didn't have it at the time). But I thought the current user point should be brought up.

Uhmm (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 13 years ago | (#131490)

The data, not hard at all, it's the database scripts that are difficult, and if they didn't use anything proprietary, nothing's hard about that. It's a pain to convert PL/SQL scripts to other solutions, and there are certain incompatibilities between some products, but they probably have full time database staff. Gotta keep em busy right? You need them on hand, they might as well be working <G>

Oh Yeah (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 13 years ago | (#131491)

That said, Pl/SQL is pretty useful stuff, and some of the proprietary database extensions of certain packages can make life easier from certain points of view, that wasn't meant as an affront to any one or any product.

Re:Mistake (2)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 13 years ago | (#131492)

I rarely use MySQL (and use PostgreSQL every day) but I thought the MySQL documentation [mysql.com] was pretty good.

So what you're saying is (2)

flimflam (21332) | more than 13 years ago | (#131493)

that they should have gone with the inferior product because some day it may do what PostgreSQL does today. OK, whatever...

Re:So.... (2)

flimflam (21332) | more than 13 years ago | (#131494)

No, now they'll say sorry, never heard of it. But we can install Red Hat Database if you want!

RedHat and Oracle divorce (2)

paled (22916) | more than 13 years ago | (#131495)

RedHat and Oracle are not even on speaking terms.
Count the days down that RH 6.2 Enterprise stays on their website.
SuSE 7.1 was the primary Linux porting platform.
Anything from the 9.0 series will not be supported by Oracle Worldwide Support on RH Linux.

It is apparently an ugly falling out. Too bad.
But after the RH 7.0 release - I'd say that they get what they deserve.

Use SuSE.

Re:Mistake (1)

rawg (23000) | more than 13 years ago | (#131496)

Too bad their documentation still sucks. At least Postgres has really good docs.
--
_|_

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (5)

reaper20 (23396) | more than 13 years ago | (#131497)

All they are going to do is wrap a customized installer around someone else's hard work.

Gee, like they do with the kernel, X, mozilla, samba, kde, and gnome? Like what every distro does? Why should this be any different?

They're adding value to customers who want a DB with support. This is open source, they can do this, and I bet $20 that the Postgre team is happy to be part of the package, since this will expand their market and get more people interested in postgre ...

Re:This is interesting news... (1)

5foot2 (24971) | more than 13 years ago | (#131498)

????????

WTF are you smoking. What part of "Red Hat is using PostgreSQL" Did you not understand? It's going to be the same fucking souce. Any changes Red Hat makes can go into the original, the same holds true for any source developed by Great Bridge.

Wow people on /. are getting so fucking lame.

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

Menthos (25332) | more than 13 years ago | (#131499)

Except that they are not forking. Read the article.

Re:RH chose PSQL because it's BSD (1)

Menthos (25332) | more than 13 years ago | (#131500)

The most advanced Free/OpenSource RDBMS is sapDB. Problem is that sapDB is GPL, and Great Bridge and Red Hat are planning to bring new features and keep it's source closed for a while. In this way they will make money. The plan is not to _fork_ the code but to release the new features _later_ to have a competitive advantage.

First of all, Great Bridge and Red Hat will not be working together. Red Hat will be putting developers on Postgres, but the companies won't be working together. All explained in the article.

Second, I don't see why Red Hat would keep changes for themselves, even for a short time. They're an opensource company, and to this day they have always released source immediately when their products are released. I don't see why that would change. Their patches might not be accepted by Postgres maintainers, but that's another issue that the future will tell. Even then, I'm confident RHDB will be available in source from day 0.

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

Menthos (25332) | more than 13 years ago | (#131501)

Go troll somewhere else.

Re:Why *would* they start from scratch? (1)

Menthos (25332) | more than 13 years ago | (#131502)

RedHat wants a DB. RedHat likes the GPL. There are good, GPL'd DB's available.

Where's the justification for reinventing the wheel?

They are not reinventing the wheel, on the contrary. They are using PostgreSQL as the base, according to the article. They will be putting developers on hacking a version of PostgreSQL (with more features, I suppose) that they can bundle with support and their distribution. If they follow track, their sources will be available from day 0 and patches sent to the PostgreSQL maintainers.

Re:Schweeet!! question, though (1)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 13 years ago | (#131504)

PostgreSQL is included in Red Hat Professional Server. PostgreSQL is included in the basic $30 version, and presumably in the $3(?) Cheapbytes version. What is different is the kind of support you have reason to expect at the other end of a phone line. For serious users who want someone interested in their problems at the other end of a phone line, this looks like a pretty sweet deal.

Re:Mistake (2)

Tony-A (29931) | more than 13 years ago | (#131505)

MySQL is not a "better" database. It is a different kind of database. The design goals of MySQL are very different. MySQL is simple, direct, and very fast, but slow readers and updates are a very bad mix. For anything involving slow readers, look at a master-slave setup with the slow readers connecting to the slave, not the master. Benchmarks are pretty well useless since the results depend on the kind of load, not how good the databases are. Personally, I like MySQL, but you do have to code differently for it ("better" (IMNSHO)). Probably if any of the SELECT statements are outside of your control, you want something where slow readers do NOT block updates.

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

halbritt (30189) | more than 13 years ago | (#131506)

Incidentally, RedHat retains the services of Alan Cox to work on the kernel. They also retain the services of dozens (hundreds?) of other Linux programmers to do work on various pieces of the distro and then release the results of that hard work under the GPL.

They're adding value to customers who want a DB with support. This is open source, they can do this, and I bet $20 that the Postgre team is happy to be part of the package, since this will expand their market and get more people interested in postgre ...

The article seems to support your conclusion:

Bruce Momjian, a Great Bridge employee and one of the six core PostgreSQL developers, also was optimistic. Red Hat's help with the PostgreSQL effort would mean "they're going to put some major resources into PostgreSQL development," he said.

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (2)

dbullock (32532) | more than 13 years ago | (#131508)

Not a huge suprise here since the original angel investor from Landmark who funded Red Hat is also the angel investor who funded Great Bridge.

In their own words. They're looking to do for databases what Red Hat did for Linux.

Given all of that, is it really any surprise?

Re:Benefits? (1)

rabidMacBigot() (33310) | more than 13 years ago | (#131509)

Personally, I mostly use MySQL for stuff. I'm a simpleton, and it's nice and simple.
Once they're both installed, I can't think of any application where MySQL beats Postgres. If MySQL is simple enough to understand, Postgres is just as simple. Do yourself a favor - make the effort to move to Postgres, and reward yourself with true atomicity, real integrity constraints, and all sorts of other useful things. It's worth it.
People will claim that MySQL is faster, but IMO, if my application is important enough that it requires speed, it's important enough to warrant Postgres.

--

Re:How do you pronounce it? (1)

Phong (38038) | more than 13 years ago | (#131510)

I pronounce it post-greh-squeal since I believe that the best way to pronounce SQL is not sequel or ess-cue-ell, but squeal. Try it, you'll like it.

Name Recognition - the only way to fly (1)

WillAffleck (42386) | more than 13 years ago | (#131511)

Yeah, having name recognition is crucial in the DB mindspace. But don't think that Oracle or DB2 will give up the Linux side, especially the latter. With Bill G still the richest man and Oracle's head honcho down to fourth, there's still vengeance to be wrecked upon MSFT.

Guess I'll have to learn Postgres now ...

Why *would* they start from scratch? (3)

Rix (54095) | more than 13 years ago | (#131516)

RedHat wants a DB. RedHat likes the GPL. There are good, GPL'd DB's available.

Where's the justification for reinventing the wheel?

So.... (1)

Sokie (60732) | more than 13 years ago | (#131518)

Does this mean more than 4 hosting companies worldwide will not say "PostgreSQ-WHAT?" when I ask them about database options?

-Sokie

Re:So.... (1)

Sokie (60732) | more than 13 years ago | (#131519)

Good enough for me! :)

-Sokie

Sorry to be an ass... (1)

Ramses0 (63476) | more than 13 years ago | (#131520)

...but haven't you heard of data warehousing?

http://www.dwinfocenter.org/defined.html [dwinfocenter.org]

http://www.dwinfocenter.org/casefor.html [dwinfocenter.org]

And the real reason that RHDB will take off is because it keeps the license police out of your server room, *especially* for stuff like data warehousing. Oracle license police are very real (at least the idea is), and is one of the major reasons we decided against Oracle here at work.

Oracle charges per MhZ, and per CPU, which is a 'license to run' their software. If you want to have a hot backup available... um... just be careful. Running Oracle on two machines is twice as expensive as running it on one. The more you want to do with Oracle, the more you have to pay Oracle, when PostgreSQL or MySQL (packaged in a $999.95 RedHat box, with 90 days support) would be more than adequate for many many tasks.

--Robert

Maybe it's part of their marketing strategy (2)

Louis Savain (65843) | more than 13 years ago | (#131521)

I think the name 'Red Hat' is much more marketable and attractive than PosgreSQL. I too, seriously doubt that RH is thinking of forking the code.

They're Selling Service and the Support (3)

Louis Savain (65843) | more than 13 years ago | (#131522)

PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL. If they don't intend to fork PostgreSQL, then why give it it's own name (Red Hat Database)? I'm not sure I understand the incentive here.

In the business world, what counts is service, support and reliability. RH is not selling software. They are selling service and expertise. PostgreSQL is a reliable but complex piece of software that requires knowledgeable people to support. That's where RH comes in. I am sure they have hired competent people who can help small to medium size businesses set up and operate their databases. Good move on RH part IMO.

You're forgetting JDBC, which SQL Server lacks (3)

Baki (72515) | more than 13 years ago | (#131523)

In some time the only relevant database access standard will be JDBC. Well, maybe it depends on your perspective, but where I work (the large Swiss banks, which are also the largest banks in the world and develop huge amounts of software to last for decennia) the only remaining programming language of importance is Java (and PL/1 on the mainframe.

ODBC, ADO, Oledb being de facto standards?!? Not in this world, they don't play even a tiny role. Only some client-side tools use ODBC via a JDBC-ODBC bridge, but such tools are highly discouraged (we rather generate CSV output from websites to push data into Excel, and don't want nor need ODBC. Writing back from a shaky product like Excel into a database of any importance is not allowed anyway). The only things that count are DB2 on the mainframe (with Corba interfaces) and JDBC databases on the rest (some DBI too for Perl). Since SQL Server doesn't provide good JDBC support (and 3rd party JDBC drivers for SQL Server are extremely expensive) it doesn't have a chance. Some smaller projects used SQL Server, but because of difficult integration they must be replaced everywhere (with Oracle, but Postgresql could also be an option).

Re:This was smart to compete agaisn't SQL server (3)

tubby (73242) | more than 13 years ago | (#131525)


Sorry Redhat but most IT manangers would choose MS in such a situation.

Right now, I doubt very much that Red Hat is aiming for or expects to get "most" IT managers buying their products. What thay _are_ aiming for is to get _more_ IT managers buying their products.

That is something which this development probably will do. I have very little doubt that RH will develop nice happy GUI interfaces etc for configuring RHDB, and that combined with Postgres not being crap, will result in more people using it.

Reasonable Choice... (4)

Kefaa (76147) | more than 13 years ago | (#131526)

So why PostgreSQL?
Red Hat needed to choose one that existed. Building from scratch, no matter how you look at it, would provide little return on investment.

They had a relationship established, with a group of developers very familiar with the product. Is it the best choice for everything, of course not. Hence the reason we have DB2/2, Oracle, MySQL...

What does Red Hat get out of it?
They have a core group of developers in place today. Zero cost of a learning curve for them and minimal for the developers they add. In addition, they get PR. Red Hat is a public company that is making money. The PR only helps.

What does the Open Source community get?
More dollars invested by someone who can work at it full time. In addition, we do not loose access to other DB choices. The development of MySQL, Oracle, sapDB, etc. will go on regardless of the announcement, either way. This will merely allow focus on this product for the reasons stated above.

To read this as a your SQL's better than mine, degrades quickly back to the NT vs. Linux sport that shows up in some newsgroup about a billion times a day. Many database options are good. Many are good at some things the others are not. I try to equate these choices like cars, we all want to drive different things for different reasons.

Who really expected anything else? (2)

BierGuzzl (92635) | more than 13 years ago | (#131527)

I don't see how anyone could have thought that they were going to start something from scratch. As for their choice of what to package, I believe it's excellent for all those involved, including those who will never use the redhad database system. Redhat will have more of a financial interest in postgresql, creating an environment where redhat will encourage the development of the product through widespread exposure and of course financial support as well as tech support for customers. Those who don't use the Red hat database system will still benefit from an improved and more thoroughly tested postgresql with a new infusion of money/developer power/user base.

Re:good move (3)

rjkimble (97437) | more than 13 years ago | (#131529)

My experience is that Watcom SQL/Sybase SQL Anywhere/Sybase Adaptive Server Anywhere/whatever they're calling it today is the most ANSI compliant database. After all, didn't PostgreSQL just get outer joins in 7.1?

Nonetheless, we're using PostgreSQL for our current effort because of the price and the quality. It also has an amazing collection of built-in functions, and its flexibility for implementing triggers/rules is superb, if a bit obscure on occasion.

All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!!

Re:Why *would* they start from scratch? (3)

teg (97890) | more than 13 years ago | (#131531)

RedHat wants a DB. RedHat likes the GPL. There are good, GPL'd DB's available.

PostgreSQL isn't GPL, it has a BSDish license.

Why not MySQL?? (1)

TheCeltic (102319) | more than 13 years ago | (#131535)

Why not MySQL?? It's more popular (and imho, better).

Some good tidbits from the CNET article.. (1)

slashbrent (102855) | more than 13 years ago | (#131536)

A couple of tidbits worth sharing...

Regarding Red Hat's first ideas about the DB business in November 1999:
IBM and Oracle both were Red Hat investors at the time, and the database companies were among the first mainstream computing corporations to endorse the Linux operating system as a credible product. Batten said Red Hat was afraid that offering its own database software would spur the database companies to favor other Linux sellers.

In regards to Red Hat doing their own PostgreSQL distro:
However, there have been some concerns, Momjian said. Some PostgreSQL developers have been worried Red Hat will "fork" the software, taking the open PostgreSQL code and starting in a new direction of their own. And others weren't happy that the Red Hat product name apparently doesn't refer to the PostgreSQL name.

But Red Hat has been a good member of the open-source community, Momjian said, backing efforts such as GCC and Gnome, so the company isn't likely to try to appropriate PostgreSQL for its own. Momjian believes forking would be impractical as well as impolitic, and Red Hat's London offered the assurance that, "We don't intend to fork the code."

Regarding market share and competition:
Red Hat, for its part, said it's targeting not Oracle customers but corporate departments or smaller companies that need a less extravagant database. Red Hat wants customers already using PostgreSQL or MySQL, London said.
...
Great Bridge is like a cardiologist with expertise, while Red Hat is more like a general practitioner that has shallower but broader experience, Batten said.

Should prove to be interesting to watch and see what happens...

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

bartok (111886) | more than 13 years ago | (#131537)

Hun? Idon't recall of any kind of free software or open source ethic that was against taking someone's work and using it in your own open source project. Red Hat are entirely entitled to do this kind of thing and the original developers of any open source program shouldn't (and in this case, don't) feel like they are bieng abused. If a free software programmer gets hangry about someone else using using his work in his own free software product, then it's their fault for having chosen a license which has put them in this situation in the first place.

Red Hat is a very generous contributor to all kinds of free software projects and you don't see them complaining when some new distro makes a copy of theirs and calls it something else.

Ug so what? (1)

DarkProphet (114727) | more than 13 years ago | (#131539)

Ummm maybe I've just had too much to drink and totally didn't understand this, but PostgreSQL has been the default DB in RedHat distros since at least RH5.0 (unless that changed somewhere in 5.x). I just must not get it... whats the big fuckin deal? I actually always kinda wondered why mysql wasn't ever the default in RH distros, its always been PostgreSQL... so is this really any surprise at all?

Re:Ug so what? (1)

DarkProphet (114727) | more than 13 years ago | (#131540)

Oops, forgot to close the <i>.

Toldja I was drunk! ;-)

Re:Man, am I a loser, oh, and Yay Redhat! (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 13 years ago | (#131542)

Does anybody else here wonder how long it will be before DEA agents start reading /. on Friday nights?

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

rgmoore (133276) | more than 13 years ago | (#131543)

I know you're not attacking RedHat here, but I felt I should note that they do a bit more than just wrap stuff together. They've got a lot of folks doing development work on a number of those items mentioned.

They doubtless will with Postgress as well. The generall feel of the thing is that they're planning on packaging up Postgress as a default database and then making money on support and (especially) consulting. Databases are one area in which it appears pretty clear that the suggested Free Software strategy of giving away the software and making money on consulting and support has a great chance of success. In order to be able to win the support and consulting contracts, though, it will be very helpful to RH to have deep, insider knowledge of the ins and outs of the product, and that suggests that they'll be developing as well as packaging it.

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

TandyMasterControl (136043) | more than 13 years ago | (#131546)

Would someone who moderated this obvious troll up to 3 Interesting care to log out and explain what your rationale?

Thanks.

Re:Why Doesn't RH Just Put Developers on PostgreSQ (1)

TandyMasterControl (136043) | more than 13 years ago | (#131547)

This insightful post, currently languishing at Score: 1, deserves moderator marks.
Did we use them all up giving a "3" to that troll [slashdot.org] above screaming about how Redhat was cravenly using Postgre after, get this, *HE HEARD* Redhat was writing their own?

Does one need an MCSE to get moderator access at Slashdot? Sure seems like it these days.

Re:Why Doesn't RH Just Put Developers on PostgreSQ (1)

mill5ja (139259) | more than 13 years ago | (#131548)

Momjian believes forking would be impractical as well as impolitic, and Red Hat's London offered the assurance that, "We don't intend to fork the code."

Sounds like they arn't going to fork the code. I would think that most/all of the stuff they add to Postgre could be a compile option (ie RPM intagration)

-jason m

Weak (1)

mill5ja (139259) | more than 13 years ago | (#131549)

n/t

Re:Mistake (5)

Wdomburg (141264) | more than 13 years ago | (#131554)

If you take a close look at the benchmarking on the InnoDB site, you'll notice their comparison against Postgresql is only measuring speeds with a since query running against the database. Likewise for their MyISAM vs. InnoDB test, and their MySQL vs "market-leading database test".

So all of these suffer from the same thing that the default MySQL benchmarks do - they're meaningless save for marketing. There are very few real world applications that are going to have serialized queries, and those that do are likely not going to require a lot of raw speed.

If you'll notice, the only test that they use multiple connections with is their scalability test, in which they make no comparison to other databases, and that showed performance dropping sharply on selects after 50 clients, and didn't even bother giving performance on more than 20 for inserts (I'd be interested in knowing whether they were just embarassing or if the server actually crashed).

And none of the tests include a mixed load of selects and inserts. And they flat out admit their methodology was different for MySQL and the contender in one test. And they ran all of it on a single server. And none of the tests include large tables, joins, transactions, sub-selects, etc, etc. The number of faults with their benchmarks are innumerable.

Part of the beauty of the newer releases of Postgresql (aside from the improvements to the query optimizer) is their new "no-locking" MVCC (Multi Version Concurrency Control) system. Selects NEVER block inserts and vice versa.

This is a _huge_ win in terms of performance in real world situations; coupled with the row (or even cell level) locking pretty much guarante better scalability than MySQL, even if running a table type that supports finer grain locking (I believe the best they do right now is page level).

I like to think of MySQL as a sports car. It'll get to zero to sixty faster than an 18-wheel truck. But if you try to put any load on it, it won't even more.

(Note - the company I work for uses MySQL for a large production database. And it has worked even for a fairly large database under a somewhat heavy load. However, it is performing adequately, not well. And there are a lot of things we simply CANNOT do (e.g. a large query against the database for statistics purposes, since the select would lock all inserts and deadlock the database. Even under normal load its not uncommon for us to see 20-30 selects locked waiting for an insert to complete).

And to be honest, even if MySQL performed half as well as their documentation implied, I find the lack of features like sub selects, select into table, transactions (under the heavily tested table types), stored procedures, triggers, foreign keys and views make it a waste of my time and a waste of the programmers time.

We have dozens of programs and scripts that all have to access the database and they all have to work around the deficiencies in MySQLs capabilities. And, to be honest, not every attempt to do so is ultimately successful, resulting in hours wasted doing cleanup work (when it actually CAN be done without killing the database.).

I don't begrudge other people their preferences, but it would take a LOT of improvement and real benchmarks to convince me MySQL is a better database.

Matt

Could someone reply and confirm? (1)

LordOfYourPants (145342) | more than 13 years ago | (#131555)

I need to be 100% clear on this. Is RedHat essentially repackaging some other group's code and selling it as their own with some token of financial support to the original coding team?

I was under the impression (yesterday? 2 days ago?) that they would be starting a DB project from scratch. If what I'm saying is correct, why is this fucking steaming pile even being mentioned? All they are going to do is wrap a customized installer around someone else's hard work.

Foriegn Key Support (2)

Metrol (147060) | more than 13 years ago | (#131556)

But - MySql has been plagued by the fact that they never implemented foreign key support into their DBMS.

Well, they know this as well. Please note the 1st item on the todo list [mysql.com] for version 4.0.

Re:RH chose PSQL because it's BSD (2)

Metrol (147060) | more than 13 years ago | (#131557)

Great Bridge and Red Hat are planning to bring new features and keep it's source closed for a while.

I do believe you need to back this statement up with some facts, if you've got them. If this is purely opinion, then please state what previous action RedHat has taken to lead you to this opinion.

Re:Benefits? (5)

Metrol (147060) | more than 13 years ago | (#131559)

Doubtful there will be any immediate benefit beyond simply coupling Postgres with RedHat, other than the RPM integration you mentioned. In the long run though, consider how Microsoft has put SQL Server to work for them. Pretty much every product they label "Enterprise" somehow integrates in with their database server.

As RedHat goes struggling for the "Enterprise" market, having a known database running under the hood is going to become more and more critical. Anything they can do to simplify the process of getting that database up and running quickly is also a major selling point over other solutions.

Personally, I mostly use MySQL for stuff. I'm a simpleton, and it's nice and simple. For what RedHat is looking to do I doubt there's a better choice out there than Postgres. That, and if Postgres gets a nice influx of new dedicated developers this should be great news for both RedHat and Postgres users.

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (5)

Metrol (147060) | more than 13 years ago | (#131560)

Gee, like they do with the kernel, X, mozilla, samba, kde, and gnome?

I know you're not attacking RedHat here, but I felt I should note that they do a bit more than just wrap stuff together. They've got a lot of folks doing development work on a number of those items mentioned.

I don't personally use RedHat here, but I do have a great deal of respect for them as a company. From what I've seen, they appear to be very straight shooters that have managed to not only lead the Linux market, but also maintain a great deal of repectability while doing so.

:Slashdot IS a mouthpiece of the Republican Party (1)

sticks_us (150624) | more than 13 years ago | (#131561)

I'm glad someone has finally gotten the guts to come out and say it.

Its clear that since its purchase by andover.net, Slashdot's sole raison d'etre is to foist thinly-veiled capitalistic schemes upon the unsuspecting masses.

Of course, nobody will ever see this message, since the censors in the GOP will remove it before it is widely circulated.


--Don't blame me, I voted for Gore--

Schweeet!! question, though (2)

green pizza (159161) | more than 13 years ago | (#131562)

Will this become part of Red Hat Professional Server? I've heard a lot of good things about PostgreSQL and am very happy that Red Hat is going to start working with it! I use RHPS on a daily basis and will buy the next version even more quickly if Red Hat DB/Red Hat PostgreSQL will be included.

Very sweet news!!!

Re:God... (1)

cryptonix (163498) | more than 13 years ago | (#131565)

say.. flaming people sounds like a better idea, thanks :)

Re:SAPDB A PIA (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 13 years ago | (#131566)

Don't even go spouting off about SAPDB being the best, why because yes it it the most industrial strength of the bunch. Now the only drawback to SAPDB is lack of good tools and the necessity of being a rocket scientist to even get the damn thing to run much less supporting it. We tried running the damn thing and actually got it to work but the maintenance and documentation issues turned us back to postgres for the real work.

Re:All this RedHat talking on Slashdot of late... (1)

SomeOtherGuy (179082) | more than 13 years ago | (#131574)

Errr....Sorry to rain on the flaim parade but Slashdot has historically covered successful Linux ventures --- and and this proud moment I am sad to say that from a finacial standpoint there is not much other than Redhat that fits this category. And although I am more of a Slackware guy....(yea walnut creek sent my favorite distro packing months ago)....my kudos go out to RedHat for making it happen...Thumbs up guys!

Re:God... (2)

ZanshinWedge (193324) | more than 13 years ago | (#131579)

I dunno, it's hard to feel pathetic when your RDBMS knowledge boosts your salary by a few $10k per year.

Re:Redhat+Postgre != Death of MySQL (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 13 years ago | (#131580)

Hey, I cam picture the BSD troll right now. :-)

MySQl is dying.....Things are not looking to well at the the MYSQL camp.......postgres makes up all installs of redhat distro's but lets compare it to other distros....where suse has only %20 of mysql downloads ...to last debian with only around 10k downloads. MySQL is dead!"

:-)

Re:Could someone reply and confirm? (3)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 13 years ago | (#131581)

Everyone here is seems to be under the impression that redhat isn't going to do anything but repackage postgres. I don't believe its true. Postgres already comes wiht redhat doesn't it?

I believe they are going to rewrite large portions of it and optimize it and probably even move some functions to a kernel level dameon just like tux. SQL server is killing the mid-level database level and its microsofts pawn to stela marketshare. Database is almost a requirement for any real bussiness app server. SQl server is taking the roll and including all proprietary tools like oldedb, ado, odbc, and a whole bunch of vb tools to take away any competion in the mid ranger server market.

We need a quick solution thats scalable fast, and cheaper. many of redhat's r&d helped make kernel 2.4 as fast as it is today. They will do the same wiht postgres. In 2 to 4 years it may be quite powerfull and competitive to SQL server today. I doubt it will approach Oracle though. If Tux is an indication of what redhat plans to do, then we will have one hell of a great database. My guess is it will be a different database then it is today in 4 years. Microsoft is going to strangle the market if we don't get our act together soon.

For the trolls who say post is postgres is postgres, is like saying linux is linux is linux. Version 1.2 of the kernel really sucked compare to what is capable in the 2.4 release. At the time 1.2 kernel users thought it was good enough and were convinced its great. Today we know its laughable. But I expect such similiar changes with postgres if RedHat is in charge of accerlating it.

This was smart to compete agaisn't SQL server (5)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 13 years ago | (#131582)

For Redhat, the idea of building a database would be a bad for bussiness on their part. First off, they would piss off Oracle and IBM and we need their support to move linux to the enterprise. Second, Redhat finally made a profit and why develop something with no instant return? If enterprise users need something powerfull Oracle or DB2 would be there. right?

But after reading the CNET article and figuring out what market they want to go after it makes pefect sense. Microsoft's strategy is to scare IT managers buy showing a product get better and better to make them think its going to gut competion from the bottom up. Remember Scalablity day 5 years ago? Ms demonstrated transaction server handling a million hits a day with transaction server/wolfpack on NT4 on a dual pentiumpro 200. IT managers noticed it ran well in low end hardware and they thought "wow, if NT can do this on pc hardware, think about what it can do with higher end hardware! In 5 years unix will be dead!". It worked! Overnight NT4 became a best seller and many doubted that unix would ever survive. Today its laughable but the marketing worked and they are using a similiar strategy with SQL server.

SQL Server is practically the defacto standard already in any mid-range or even department database. MS is gutting them from the ground up. IT managers still have the all ms craze of 5 years ago and Oracle/sun or db2/as400 is pretty expensive and is used for large operations and is slower in midrange use. This is why Oracle bans the use of benchmarks. Sql Server is serious competition and is getting better. Sql server is supprising stable where I work and it went down only once in 3 years!

IT managers who buy redhat use it for a quick webserver installation or cheap department server. SQL server is cheaper to buy and implement for a bussiness database and it has support for odbc, ADO, oledb which are all becoming the defacto standards. Postgres as it is today has some limited odbc support, is not scalable, hard to set it up to handle a real load. I have no idea how Rob Malda even managed to run his site with only Mysql. Contrary to poular believe here on slashdot postgres, and mySQL are great for development but suck in real bussiness situations with hundreds of users. PHPbuilder.com did a benchmark and showed mysql having trouble with intense SQL calls with only 30 users. Since database access is essential for any web/intranet, messaging, or client/server app we need to have an alternative with great odbc, ado, oledb support as well as JDBC.

The problem with SQL Server is it doesn't support JDBC (wonder why) without an expensive third party extension. Servelts are pretty standard for retreiving data on intranet/internet servers. So if you have java servlets running on an intranet server you need a real database but only expensive oracle/sun or db2/as400 is available for real bussiness use( I assume 500-1000 users)?

Microsoft's answer is c#.net or VB.net applets running on SQL.NET wich is cheaper and fully integrated. You can also save development time by writing the apps in Visual basic and that alone could save for the cost of the servers. Sorry Redhat but most IT manangers would choose MS in such a situation.

With a real midrange database there can be a more economical solution thats more fault tollerant (if connection to the web dies, the server goes down in .NEt/hailstorm :-) ), cheaper, and hopefully more powerfull. I assume redhat will come out with its own threading scheme and might put some limited functions in the kernel like what they did with TUX. SQL server is faster because its in the kernel and its supprising stable because they made sure to only put the indexing routines in the kernel and not memory managment in SQL server. We need real competition before ms guts Oracle from the bottom up.

IF redhat can accelerate postgres, and make it scale to many processors, support oledb, odbc and .ocx for easy development for all the VB zombies, then I will be happy.

Man, am I a loser, oh, and Yay Redhat! (1)

Denial of Service (199335) | more than 13 years ago | (#131583)

Posting to Slashdot, very, very goofed out on stink weed, at 11:30 on a Friday night, alone.

They say that there's nothing more pathetic than a sad clown and, while that may be true in most cases, I am truly sadder and clownier than the saddest clown... at least right now. Luckily, I'm too numb to notice. Heh heh.

Also, this is a great move for Redhat in that it not only diversified their potential for support income past just the OS itself now that RH is actually making money, but also offers an oddly top-quality OSS database with an increasingly stable name recognition behind it to win some goofy nods in the corporate boardroom of Smallco. Redhat certainly ain't no Microsoft or Adobe quite yet in terms of public knowledge, but with the number of slobberpails&COPY who immediately assume that Red Hat *IS* Linux *IS* Redhat, it's the closest thing that the Linux community has to an overall "street rep".

Blah. Insightful or Troll, I really don't care.

---

Branding - you've hit the nail firmly on the head (2)

abe ferlman (205607) | more than 13 years ago | (#131585)

If I had any mod points right now I'd give them to wrinkledshirt. This is such an excellent point- red hat is a bridge for lots of people to get into linux, and they've done a good job not pissing anyone off too badly so far. Plus they are profitable.

So long as they don't abuse their brand by doing evil things, I say go red hat, build a brand so powerful that even the emperor himself will be forced to deal with us...

er,

if you'd just lead them to true freedom, they'd follow you, and so would I,

er,

bring balance to the force,

er...

I can't believe I'm not posting this anonymously

-one os to run them all, and in the darkness bind them...

Yes, Name Recognition!!! (3)

kstumpf (218897) | more than 13 years ago | (#131593)

In order to go mainstream in the enterprise market, your software really has to have name recognition. Look at the mystique the name "RedHat" has now. The IT brass at my company didn't even realize there were other distributions until I told them RedHat was just one! (There's more than one Linux? Free? Errr!?)

To these kinds of people (which are unfortunately the people often writing the checks), when they hear PostGres, the name translates to a big fat "huh?". But if you take that software, gussy it up, and slap the word RedHat on it, and you instantly change that to "oh, RedHat's database".

I think its silly that such means must be gone to, but if this gets more opensource out into the enterprise world, then I'm all for it. Once people adopt the platform and the bumbling populace is more 'edumacated' about the Linux world, people will wake up and say "hey, I can just use PostGres!".

Damn the rusty wheels of corporate progress.

Re:Sorry, MySQL... (1)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 13 years ago | (#131594)

As it is, the only way that Red Hat can compete is on price points. They will have to price RHDB so low that it will be akin to giving it away. Under $1000 for an enterprise-wide license.

Er... considering you can get a RedHat distribution and PostgreSQL right now for free, I don't think they're going to be looking at this as a direct revenue generator. Heck, PostgreSQL is server-ready pretty much out of the box with RH distros these days.

Chances are it'll be for value-adding, kind of what Microsoft did by including a web browser with the OS. Love the web browser? Need the os. In this case, love RHDB? Need RH.

Re:Why Doesn't RH Just Put Developers on PostgreSQ (5)

wrinkledshirt (228541) | more than 13 years ago | (#131595)

One word: "Branding"

Yes sir, we folks at Red Hat, known for the Red Hat Linux Distribution, RHCEs and enterprise-level solutions, are now packing with every forthcoming Red Hat distribution a Red Hat configured database solution for low- to middle-tier database needs. The RHDB will be specially customized for Red Hat systems, which are put out by Red Hat, the most prominent Linux distribution on the market today.

You laugh, because it seems obvious here, but I remember taking a look over at a Microsoft story on MSNBC, and found no less than 75 instances of Microsoft branding, using "Microsoft" or "MS" or "Windows". And this was for one story, on one web page.

Any new avenue that Red Hat can use to drop its own name is an opportunity to solidify mindshare. Entering the database arena with a core product that won't embarass them is a no-brainer. They've even got GTK+ experts in-house that can make the thing look pretty.

This could be a SERIOUS hit to MS Access and SQL server. And with Postgresql functionality built straight into php, the whole MS-IIS-ACCESS/SQLS-ASP combination can be easily matched in terms of quality, performance and reliability by Linux-Apache-RedhatDB-PHP combination, totally surpassed in terms of cost, and only lagging behind a little bit in the gui department. From a marketing standpoint, it makes the solution LOOK more cohesive (even if it isn't), and that's always been the selling point of going with an MS solution -- smart move by RedHat. And with the GPL on their hands, we can trust them not to be sluggish and proprietary in terms of responding to the community's needs -- good move for us.

Re:Constant Red Hat Feed Please... (1)

dvNull (235982) | more than 13 years ago | (#131596)

Whats gotten your panties in a twist?


Just a reminder to all :

Re:This was smart to compete agaisn't SQL server (1)

frleong (241095) | more than 13 years ago | (#131597)

Look, I just tried Red Hat Linux 7.1 yesterday and the interface is pretty much dependent on KDE and GNOME, and these are NOT YET mature enough. If RH can't even make a decent UI for the OS, I cannot expect them to get a "nice happy GUI interface" for their database product.

Why not sapdb (3)

iomud (241310) | more than 13 years ago | (#131598)

Seriously, why not use sapdb? We know it's pretty robust, perhaps too much so? It seems like too good a product to just let it sit unused.

PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL (1)

whjwhj (243426) | more than 13 years ago | (#131599)

OK I'm confused. PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL. If they don't intend to fork PostgreSQL, then why give it it's own name (Red Hat Database)? I'm not sure I understand the incentive here.

Re:They're Selling Service and the Support (1)

whjwhj (243426) | more than 13 years ago | (#131600)

I understand the service and support thing. Still doesn't explain the change in name. Red Hat services and supports all sorts of software that they didn't actively rename. They could still service and support PostgreSQL without changing the name. Changing the name would imply they intend to differentiate it in some significant way. But without forking the code, I don't see how they could. So why change the name?

Re:All this RedHat talking on Slashdot of late... (1)

whjwhj (243426) | more than 13 years ago | (#131601)

If you read Slashdot regularily it wasn't until the last couple of days that Red Hat popped up a few times. Coincidence. So what?

Why you got modded up is beyond me. I would have modded you down as 'troll'.

Re:Maybe it's part of their marketing strategy (1)

whjwhj (243426) | more than 13 years ago | (#131602)

Well I agree that 'Red Hat Database' is no doubt a more marketable name. But without it being any different than PostgreSQL in any way, I still don't see the point. Seems hardly fair for Red Hat to simply hijack the name, although nothing is stopping them I suppose. But, unless it's different than PostgreSQL in some real way, I just don't see why they would simply rename it. Even if they throw developers at it, it's still PostgreSQL. And nobody outside of Red Hat (and non techie middle management types) is going to call it anything else. All of this to dupe some unaware middle management types? Doubt it.

Re:Maybe it's part of their marketing strategy (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 13 years ago | (#131604)

I think it has everything to do with marketing. It's _IBM_ DB2, _Microsoft_ SQL 2000, _Oracle_ 8i (or 9, but who's counting).

If I tell my boss I want to use PostgreSQL (which doesn't honestly sound terrific in english--hard to tell how to write it unless you know it) then he'll say: What's that? Translation: I don't know how it relates to the real world, so forget it. Instead he'll say: let's get some more user licences for MS SQL 2000.
Instead, if I say, let's use the Red Hat Database (he *has* heard of Red Hat, as anyone who read the wsj has) and I say it's free, supported, and does not require any kind of licensing, and yadda yadda ... DARPA... NASA... *buzzwords galore*... Then he'll go for it.

It has nothing to do with developers, it has everything to do with middle to upper management feeling comfortable using an officially supported database for business critical applications (i'd like to know what is *not* business critical at my company)

Re:PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL (2)

Proud Geek (260376) | more than 13 years ago | (#131605)

Linux is Linux. Why give it it's own name (Red Hat Linux)? I don't understand it completely myself, especially since they are selling something they already include in the box.

It probably has to due with branding and product recongition. If they sell it and make an effort to offer support for it, it has to have their name. As for why not Red Hat PostgreSQL, I think their marketing team probably just didn't think of it. It sounds awful, but I doubt that would stop a marketing team.

Look forward to better linux db support? (1)

BLAG-blast (302533) | more than 13 years ago | (#131606)

So far I haven't see any decent linux DB solution never mind a decent open source DB solution. I'm guessing Red Hat are getting on this because nobody else has made any head way in the commercial linux db market.
--

Re:*BSD is dying (1)

Script0r (305025) | more than 13 years ago | (#131607)

I use OpenBSD on my all of my company webservers and honestly, I would never even think of switching. I don't know anyone who would choose any other operating system for a server of some kind.

Re:Mistake (4)

roguerez (319598) | more than 13 years ago | (#131608)

Bwahahaha. You must be kiddin' me. Once upon a time MySql was better - but only in terms of performance. But - MySql has been plagued by the fact that they never implemented foreign key support into their DBMS. The MySql documentation speaks of foreign keys as if they are a bad thing. Which is of course a joke because everybody who has studied DBMS's seriously, knows that foreign keys are an integral part the relational database model as it exists.

Now, I ask you, why would the MySql designers occupy such a religious statement?

Is it because they would never be able to implement foreign key support afterwards into a static design, where you just could not possibly fit it in without a rewrite of the core DBMS logic?

Mysql is mostly a way of storing your data in some kind of simple hashed form, accessible with SQL queries. That's why mysql is so fast with queries.

But I think this was never the meaning of the relation model. I can store my data in my own hashed format, and my queries would be just as fast, or faster. Mysql is just a packaged piece of software representing this simple kind of storage, which answer to only the most simplest of SQL queries.

Take postgresql on the other hand: foreign key support, transaction roll-back support, ability to plug-in your favourite query language (be it based on tuple or domain calculus or relational algebra like sql), etc etc etc. With the added bonus that PostgreSQL *smokes* mysql on every available benchmark that you can find, it's clear which is the better option.

Re:God... (2)

rdean400 (322321) | more than 13 years ago | (#131609)

Who is more pathetic....the fool who talks about databases, or the fool who talks about talking about databases? (or the fool who talks about talking about talking about databases)?

Re:PostgreSQL is PostgreSQL (1)

glenebob (414078) | more than 13 years ago | (#131610)

Because it's called Redhat LINUX, not Redhat OS. Not the same thing at all.
--

Why Doesn't RH Just Put Developers on PostgreSQL? (3)

idonotexist (450877) | more than 13 years ago | (#131612)

After reading the story and other information in the past concerning this development, I don't understand what redhat is exactly trying to do here. Will redhat package the db on its on and sell the packaging + support? (like it does with linux) Why do this? Why not just increase distribution of PostgreSQL (i.e.: a download page on its site and add a couple of marketing dudes), add pay-for-support and put some caffeine drinking pizza eating coders on PostgreSQL? Seems as though RH is taking this too far. If they are going all the way, perhaps RH should use some stock to buy out one of the above mentioned PostgreSQL distros.

why do webhosters provide MySQL? (1)

raldanash (451422) | more than 13 years ago | (#131613)

the lack of transactions suck, that's for sure. i'm working on a small-scale e-commerce site with MySQL-it'll do fine, not a big volume of traffic at all. i have several clients i'm doing stuff for, and it seems that all the hosters are providing MySQL as the RDBMS. so it's free, i get it, but so is PostgreSQL. how come they don't use that? is MySQL that much easier to use? currently my only d.b. experience is with MySQL, so i have no point of comparison.

Re:Because it's easier to pronounce (1)

raldanash (451422) | more than 13 years ago | (#131614)

ok, i don't feel as stupid asking now-how DO you pronounce PostgreSQL? Oracle, Informix, DB2, MySQL, SQL server, etc. etc. are all so much easier to roll off the tongue-and they don't make CIS PhDs as stupid sound as well probably :)

Benefits? (1)

BastardOpFromHell (452398) | more than 13 years ago | (#131615)

So are there any other benefits (besides RPM integration) of using Red Hat's version of PostgreSQL over the standard?

Re:This was smart to compete agaisn't SQL server (2)

m08593 (455349) | more than 13 years ago | (#131616)

Microsoft's answer is c#.net or VB.net applets running on SQL.NET wich is cheaper and fully integrated. You can also save development time by writing the apps in Visual basic and that alone could save for the cost of the servers. Sorry Redhat but most IT manangers would choose MS in such a situation.

You are probably right that "most IT managers" are mightily impressed by database benchmarks and by VB. That doesn't make either SQL server or VB a good choice. If Linux had been developed according to what most IT managers prefer, it wouldn't even exist today because Microsoft and IBM do that sort of thing so much better.

good move (3)

ramb0z0 (456402) | more than 13 years ago | (#131617)

I am very happy to hear this. I write a database agnostic product and PostgreSQL is the only one that is consistantly ANSI compliant.

Re:Why not MySQL?? (2)

metachimp (456723) | more than 13 years ago | (#131618)

MySQL is nice, for 'pet' database type things, or a small to mid-range non-OLTP type system, but there no freaking way that its an enterprise quality database. It just ain't there. I know that there are people out there who would claim otherwise, but I'd say they didn't know what they were talking about.

Red Hat probably wants to occupy the space that someone like Filemaker or maybe Foxpro would have previously occupied. Considering that Oracle and IBM have Linux implementations, that class of database stuff is already covered.

Postgres is usually included in most distros, but if Red Hat can manage to dress it up, perhaps slap a GUI on it, then they'll be cooking with gas, and definitely in a position to fool around with small, light load utility typw databases for non-mission critical and no heavy transactions (like Filemaker or Foxpro or even that abomination known as Access...)

Following the Microsoft model... (2)

Gazelem (460580) | more than 13 years ago | (#131620)

I find this to be remarkably similar to what Microsoft did with Sybase and SQL Server. Eventually, you're likely to see RH with literally their own product such that it's unrecognizable as being postgres.

Mistake (1)

mecachis (461067) | more than 13 years ago | (#131624)

Currently PostgreSQL is better than MySQL, but this is changing. See the great MySQL improvements from
innodb [innodb.com] .
Once this code is more stable it would give lots of image problems to postgres. Additionally, MySQL has a very clean code.

Re::Slashdot IS a mouthpiece of the Republican Par (1)

CodeMonkeyM (462232) | more than 13 years ago | (#131625)

SlashDot is owned by OSDN.com, part of the VALinux.com empire, lackies of the Bush-Gore conspiracy!!!

Re:Mistake (1)

tgl (462237) | more than 13 years ago | (#131626)

Come now. You think the Postgres community is going to lie down and do nothing while MySQL catches up? Postgres has been improving at a very substantial rate over the past couple of years. That's not going to stop --- in fact, with RedHat contributing a number of full-time developers, the rate of improvement should be even better in future. Catch us if you can.

Re:Why Doesn't RH Just Put Developers on PostgreSQ (1)

tgl (462237) | more than 13 years ago | (#131627)

I don't believe that RedHat has any desire to fork the code --- have they forked Linux? gcc? gdb? a bunch of other stuff that they contribute work to? No, they'll contribute to the project and package releases, same as they do with those projects. I've already met with some of their developers who will be contributing, so I know this is real. This should be good all around.
However, feel free to flame their apparent intention to plaster their own name on an open-source project that's been around considerably longer than RedHat itself has. That bit sticks in my craw, too. I've got to suppose that that's the brainchild of some clue-free marketroid.

nah, it's a historical artifact (1)

tgl (462237) | more than 13 years ago | (#131628)

how come they don't use [Postgres]?
MySQL has good mind-share among webmasters, no doubt about it. My two cents about why: it reflects where things stood several years ago, when people first started setting up database-backed websites. At that time, Postgres had just been thrown over the wall from Berkeley as being not quite the cutting-edge research they wanted to do anymore. The current crowd of developers picked it up and started to turn it into a robust, production-grade system --- something it is looking more like all the time. But back then, it was a research system: it wasn't especially portable, nor especially easy to install, nor especially bug-free. Many early webmasters looked at it and couldn't get past those problems, for which I can't blame them a lot. Meanwhile, MySQL was a brand new system; not real featureful, maybe, but they'd done their homework on making it easy to install and use. So it got adopted by a lot of people. Now Postgres has to play catchup in the mindshare department, even though the problems that originally drove people away from it are largely history.
RedHat's adoption of Postgres may do something to help in acquiring mindshare...

Re:This is interesting news... (3)

tgl (462237) | more than 13 years ago | (#131629)

I'd like if someone could help clarify what is exactly happenning though. Great Bridge employs half the Postgres developers.
Half the core committee, please, not half of the whole community. (BTW, I'm one of the half, so take my comments accordingly.)
They claim to have a "commercially QA-tested" version of Postgres -- what exactly is this?
What it says. Great Bridge tries to make sure that releases it packages are solid. Some Postgres releases are, um, not so solid, despite the best efforts of the community. GB adds another layer of testing and double-checking.
Does anyone have any more information either on what Great Bridge's or Red Hat's versions of PosgreSQL have over the normal releases?
I can't speak for RedHat, but Great Bridge's policy is to ship recognized Postgres releases. GB offers a nifty graphical installer (also open source, but it's not in the standard Postgres distribution), and the CD carries a number of related tools, but there's nothing there you couldn't get off the net. What GB adds is knowing what you want and which releases you want of it.
Based on RedHat's past track record, I expect that they're going to do largely the same sort of things with Postgres as GB is doing: ship releases they believe are good, along with selected tools that complement it. This will be competition for Great Bridge, no doubt about it. But I'm not in fear of being on the street soon. As database specialists, GB should be able to continue to win customers over RedHat's generalism. Besides, RedHat choosing Postgres increases the credibility of the project all round, and should increase the size of the customer pool that we will all be splashing in. I'm optimistic that it's a win-win situation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>