Hi to all
I have to disagree.
You cannot just divide PostgreSQL into various sections.
People tend to think that tuning is nothing more than setting some
server side parameter which not true at all. Also, knowing something
about writing C/C++ applications with PostgreSQL does not mean that this
person will be able to write good software if he doesn't know about
other aspects of the system.
PostgreSQL is a powerful system but it is still small enough to
understand it and to be a DBA as well as a tuner or a C/C++ programmer.
I can understand your approach - it can be used for Oracle or let's say
SAP but not for PostgreSQL.
If somebody wants to certify other people he has to know more about the
system and there needs to be at least one expert who has enough
experience to do the job.
Some people have asked for certification in the past but meanwhile I
think that preparing a certification guide and all that stuff is not
worth the effort.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> What about certifiying the instructor first? I mean: 'PGDG Certified
>> Instructors'. If I'm a PGDG Certified instructor, everyone should be
>> sure that I could answare almost 'any' question about PostgreSQL.
> I don't think that is a good first run. For example, I am a hell of a
> tuner. I can get into a database and make analysis of problems that can
> be solved by different processes, schema changes, postgresql.conf changes
> I know only the basics of pl/pgSQL. Enough to write a function/trigger when
> Of course some of my other programmers are quite adept and pl/pgSQL but
> they aren't as adept with the actual DBA type stuff.
> There is no "one hat". That is why the MCSE is crap because it assumes that
> once reached you are a "one hat" answer.
> Back when I was in MS hell, and would take classes on things like
> Exchange. The
> certified "Instructor" never knew almost "any" question. They were always
> very strong in one or two areas.
> To me it makes more sense to have individual certifications that encompass
> small ranges of talents. Similar to the Comp Tia A+, where there is A+
> networks, A+ Windows,
> A+ Linux etc....
> We could have:
> PGDG Administrator
> PGDG Developer C/C++
> PGDG Developer Java
> PGDG Developer .Net
> PGDG SQL specialist
> I am just blowing wind at this point to provide examples.
> Joshua Drake
>> Ok, let's see the point: We are running an open-source product, that
>> has no company with it. I'd prefer a class that will be certified by a
>> company or Development Group. For example, there are a lot of Linux
>> Classes in here; but when I feel that I need to take a certificate,
>> I'd prefer Red Hat's exams. So, there may be a lot of PostgreSQL
>> classes everywhere --but I'm pretty sure that people will choose a
>> (PGDG) certified class.
>> All you need to say is 'PGDG Certifies XX Company's Courses'; you do
>> not need to announce the opposite.
>> Devrim GUNDUZ
>> devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org devrim(dot)gunduz(at)linux(dot)org(dot)tr
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: scott.marlowe||Date: 2003-10-30 14:44:35|
|Subject: Re: Press Release|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2003-10-30 07:10:15|
|Subject: KOffice's Kexi now has a pgsql driver|