Re: PostgreSQL Timeline
| От | MARK CALLAGHAN |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: PostgreSQL Timeline |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFbpF8P=D_RM30rpNAZKJ-tDBak8oEvUd66+8mTR=Qam0Uj9-g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: PostgreSQL Timeline (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-advocacy |
The sources I listed claim that Paraccel used the PG optimizer in an early release and uses no PG code today. Another source states that Vertica has no PG code. Why do you describe these as forks?
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
On 09/18/2013 11:31 AM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:That depends on your definition of "fork". There are things which are
> Where are the references that Vertica is sort-of a PG fork and that
> Paraccel is a PG fork? Quick searches of the interweb finds claims that
> they are not. Not sure you need to bring doubt to the rest of the details
> in an excellent slide deck.
forks which are 90% community Postgres code, and things which are 30%
Postgres code. What percentage makes something a fork, and what
doesn't, and why?
Mark Callaghan
mdcallag@gmail.com
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: