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

Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions on postgresql

From: Thomas Hallgren <thhal(at)mailblocks(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unsupported 3rd-party solutions (Was: Few questions on postgresql
Date: 2004-08-22 14:14:44
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general

> I think the major question would still remain, "What is that worth?",
> if PostGreSQL says that the software works with their product. If there was a problem with it, or
> if the developer decided not to upgrade to a new version with the main
> product, there is still no warranty. PostGreSQL will probably not pick
> up the development and upgrade it themselves.
I agree that if that was the case, the whole exercise would be pointless.

> I agree with you that a third-party solution may not be the most
> comfortable thing to do, but that is one of the inherent risks when
> going Open Source. There is also no guarantee on PostGreSQL doing what
> it is supposed to or what they say it does. The only difference
> between using PostGreSQL and using a product that works with
> PostGreSQL is that you have increased your risk. It was not like you
> were in the safe-zone and were determining whether to take a risk or
> not.
I agree here too. But I think there's more to it.

There's a lot of PostgreSQL users out there today. The community is very 
large and the risk of it going down the drain any time soon is extremely 
small. The risk of using a third party product however, is on the 
opposite side of that scale. This is bad for all partys involved. It's 
bad for PostgreSQL as a whole, for the third party product, and for all 
users, potential or existing.

So, my suggestion is that the "verify" to get a "supported" status would 
actually mean something. It would mean that the PostgreSQL community has 
a real interest in the product and that they have every intention to 
maintain it. Such a "commitment" would of course not be binding in any 
way but it would state an intent. I think that would be very valuable to 

Combine that with pre-packaged distributions containing the supported 
modules to be found at the PostgreSQL web site. You ask "What is that 
worth?". I for one claim it's worth a great deal. It would really 
motivate me (and I imagine others) to go further with my product. It 
would give potential users a "product" that contain everything they want 
it to contain. It strengthen PostgreSQL's position as the most advanced 
free database in the market even more.


Thomas Hallgren

In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Ioannis TheoharisDate: 2004-08-22 16:13:00
Subject: About inheritance
Previous:From: Christopher BrowneDate: 2004-08-22 13:44:49
Subject: Re: Few questions on postgresql (dblink, 2pc, clustering)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group