On 02/09/14 23:11, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <j...@commandprompt.com
<mailto:j...@commandprompt.com>>wrote:
On 09/02/2014 09:48 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
As a case in point, EDB have spent quite a few man-years
on their Oracle
compatibility layer; and it's still not a terribly exact
match, according
to my colleagues who have looked at it. So that is a
tarbaby I don't
personally care to touch ... even ignoring the fact that
cutting off
EDB's air supply wouldn't be a good thing for the
community to do.
What any commercial entity and the Community do are mutually
exclusive and we can not and should not determine what features we
will support based on any commercial endeavor.
From where I sit the "mutually exclusive" argument doesn't seem to be
true - and in fact is something I think would be bad if it were. We
shouldn't be afraid to add features to core that vendors are offering
but at the same time the fact that the Oracle compatibility aspects
are commercial instead of in-core is a plus to help ensure that there
are people making a decent living off PostgreSQL and thus are invested
in its future
Definitely we shouldn't be afraid to add any feature to core, if we
(as a community) like it and can do it. And for sure, commercial
versions and consultancy companies need to make a living and we should
care of them all (that includes myself -my company-, of course). But
there is plenty of space for all, specially with an Oracle compatibility
layer. That would attract many many many users to postgres, and we all
(including EDB, of course) would immediately benefit from it. Of course
the community too.
Plus, competition is never bad: it's the key to progress. Even if
it would steal business from EDB, having to "compete" with PostgreSQL
would foster them to improve and differentiate, becoming better. So I
don't see any problem there.
Of course, that's only my view :)
Best,
Álvaro
