Re: [GENERAL] Future of PostgreSQL

"Marc G. Fournier" wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Dec 1999, Ed Loehr wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > We don't have roll-forward logging until 7.1, and require vacuum
> > > regularly. Other than that, I don't know of any major issues.
> > > Reliability has always been of primary importance. We wouldn't be where
> > > we are today without reliability.
> >
> > Here's an idea: How about a web poll on www.postgresql.org to assess
> > the current state of affairs from the user's perspective? That would
> > have several advantages. First, it's pretty easy to do. Second, if
> > there are, in fact, few or no outstanding major reliability issues,
> > that's good to know and provides firmer footing for feature planning
> > (also great marketing fodder). Third, it could provide a quantitative
> > baseline for future comparisons, helping everyone to get warm fuzzies
> > when measurable improvement appears. Most importantly, it would
> > provide an opportunity for corrective action if by chance current
> > assumptions are wrong.
>
> Feel like writing it? I can provide you with an account, and database
> access, if you want to work on this sort of thing?

Sure. Quite swamped right now, but should be able to have something in
January. Please set up an account with DB access...

Cheers,
Ed Loehr