On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 5:23 AM Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 10:37 PM Joseph M Hellerstein > <hellerst...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > > > My 2 cents from the peanut gallery would be to prioritize efforts that > > help grow the community for MADlib on PostgreSQL. From a marketing > > perspective, the "top of the funnel" is PostgreSQL users, and there are > > lots more of them to try and reach than any other platform. I worry that > > excitement about MADlib could languish because of a historical focus on > > Greenplum. > > Huge +1 to that! > > > On a related note of growing adoption, it would be great to see more > > interop for other PostgreSQL-compliant backends, e.g. some of the cloud > > offerings. This might require finding interested contributors at vendors. > > If I can be helpful making connections, let me know -- I'm in touch with > > relevant folks at AWS, Google, Azure, etc. if somebody in the open source > > community is interested in pursuing those conversations. > > Joe, from your vantage point, what are the exciting > PostgreSQL-compliant backends that you're seeing (especially when it > comes to startup companies). Things like TimescaleDB and Neon, etc. > In terms of reach, none of the startups compare to the cloud vendors' in-house offerings. I'd focus energy there. The challenge is that, to my knowledge, none of them support arbitrary C UDFs. So I'd explore both business and technical solutions to that. On the business side, one could try to convince vendors to anoint MADlib as an approved extension. That would likely require some customer advocacy. On the technical side, the goal would be to get MADlib running using only approved UDF frameworks. I can see various approaches there that seem feasible. Again, I'm very much in the peanut gallery here, not having kept a close eye on MADlib usage or the PostgreSQL ecosystem in recent years. So take my advice as worth about the cost you paid for it :-) > > Thanks, > Roman. >