Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [Fwd: Questions on 7.3 version for LinuxWorld]

From: Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing Mailing List <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Questions on 7.3 version for LinuxWorld]
Date: 2002-12-09 04:54:26
Message-ID: 3DF42202.1090803@postgresql.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Neil Conway wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-12-08 at 22:52, Justin Clift wrote:
> 
>>Nadia's questions (from below) have been added into a page in the new 
>>collaborative area, so people can make notes/comments/etc directly, and 
>>we should be able to get the results to her by about this time tomorrow 
>>if it's as effective as I'm hoping...
> 
> 
> I was going to add comments to that page, but since this is just my
> opinion, it's probably easier to put it out for discussion on this list
> first. Also, I wasn't sure if you wanted a "quotation and response" to
> the original email, or an entirely new response...

Have phoned her to find out if the 24 hours delay is cool, and she's ok 
about it.  Before making it clear that the reason for the call was to 
ask if a 24 hour delay is ok (and also telling her why... "it's a good 
"quick" trial project for the new Advocacy and Marketing group and the 
collaboration software"), she grabbed her notes and started reading the 
questions off to me.

Gut feeling says that she's asking these questions because she's not 
sure what else to ask.  So we should probably answer them directly, but 
also it might be a good idea to give her some other stuff so she can 
write something that sounds interesting for the readers.  ;)

The readers may be reasonably technical, as it's for the 
linuxworld.com.au site, but she isn't.


>>- What is the 92 scheme specification, and why has support for it been 
>>included in the latest version of postgreSQL?
> 
> 
> The "92 scheme specification" you refer to is the SQL92 standard, which
> specifies the query language used by most major relational databases.
> Schema support is part of this standard. Implementing more features of
> the standard makes it easier for PostgreSQL to interoperate with other
> standards-compliant databases.

Maybe a bit too formal?

How about:

The "92 scheme specification" is the American National Standards 
Organisation (ANSI) SQL92 standard, which specifies the SQL query 
language used by most major relational databases (PostgreSQL, Oracle, 
DB2, Sybase, etc).  Schema support is one of the parts of this standard, 
making it easier for [blurb], and to migrate from other (often 
commercial) databases to PostgreSQL.  PostgreSQL has actively been 
adding ANSI SQL features for many years and is now one of the most ANSI 
  SQL compliant databases in existence.  [is this true?]  This makes it 
easier for PostgreSQL to interoperate with other ANSI SQL compliant 
databases.


> [ ... anyone care to contribute a blurb on why schemas are great? ]
 >
>>- What are the conditions of using PostgreSQL?
> 
> 
> PostgreSQL is free to use, modify or distribute for any purpose,
> provided the copyright notice is included. In other words, it's licensed
> under the standard "BSD" terms.

Needs a bit more explanation, really spelling it out for people.  i.e. 
"There are no license fees of any kind for PostgreSQL, and you are free 
to modify it however you want, and don't even have to share your 
modifications with anyone.  The only thing you have to do is make sure 
the BSD license and copyright notice are included with any versions you 
do distribute."


>>- How long did it take to develop the latest 7.3 release?
> 
> 
> By my count (judging from the release of 7.2.0 until 7.3.0), about 10
> months.

Cool.  :)


>>- When do you expect to release the next version of the system?
> 
> 
> Since we haven't discussed a release date on -hackers (or even have a
> firm idea of what we'd like to see in 7.4, and when those features are
> going to be implemented), I don't think we should commit to a release
> date with the media.

Maybe we should use this opportunity to build anticipation?  Something 
like "Because we'll be adding native support for Windows, Point in Time 
recovery, and other advanced features in PostgreSQL 7.4, our initial 
target date is around April 2003".

Does this sounds like an ok approach?

:-)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift


> Cheers,
> 
> Neil


-- 
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi


In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2002-12-09 05:11:22
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Questions on 7.3 version for LinuxWorld]
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2002-12-09 04:23:20
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Questions on 7.3 version for LinuxWorld]

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group