On 09/02/2014 02:11 PM, David Johnston wrote:
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Joshua D. Drake <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>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
Far more people make a very good living off of PostgreSQL than *any* commercial variant. I stand by what I said. It is not the responsibility or the care of the community what a commercial vendor does or does not do with their fork except, possibly to implement the open source equivalent where it makes sense or where licensing may not be followed. (Read: I don't care about oracle compatibility)
-- Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development High Availability, Oracle Conversion, @cmdpromptinc "If we send our children to Caesar for their education, we should not be surprised when they come back as Romans." -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
