Re: FAQ on Embedding Postgres

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:56:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:35:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> If we need a FAQ entry on this at all, I'd stop after David's
> >> first two sentences.
>
> > Stopping there seems like a very bad idea from a public relations
> > point of view.
>
> Pointing to an alternative product doesn't make that any better.
> What would make it better is to explain *why* we design PG this way.

It's good to explain why PG does what it does how it does it, and that
should be in that section of the FAQ, but continuing, even by silence,
with an answer equivalent to, "We don't do that. You shouldn't
either. Tough $#!+" only makes us look bad, where suggesting
alternatives for the use cases we don't cover makes us look good.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate