> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
> Sent: 13/07/07, 22:10:59
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>> Dave Page wrote:
> Regardless of this whole thread about CMD, it's not cool for a
> company selling PostgreSQL support to be slagging PostgreSQL.
> Which was the point of the original post last night. No one from EDB can
> legitimize that.
No need to - no-one has been 'slagging PostgreSQL' - in fact we often pitch EDB as being based on PostgreSQL's rock-solid code.
In this case, it was stated that a customer would get better support, reliability and performance from EDB over their existing PostgreSQL system. I believe they're using AS81 - do you know what version of PostgreSQL they were using? 6.3.2? 7.1? 8.0.4? Even if it were also 8.1, the performance gains are feasible, given DynaTune and other tweaks, and we may well have found and fixed other bugs that aren't fixed in that PG version - we do have a buildfarm running something like 17000 (iirc) regression tests nightly over the server *and* connectors. We also ship additional management tools, and replication which the customer may be using to make their systems more reliable and fault tolerant.
However you read that, it is not slagging PostgreSQL - heck, *I'd* be complaining to those responsible if that were the case because, like many other EDB staff, I consider myself part of the community, work primarily on community PG, and am very proud of that fact.
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Chris Browne||Date: 2007-07-13 21:48:46|
|Subject: Re: Regarding Distributed Database features|
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2007-07-13 21:37:43|
|Subject: Re: Problem with recent PostgreSQL relatedpressrelease|