Обсуждение: Fwd: Re: enabling postgresql by default
This sort of says it all. Does someone with more of an idea of what they're talking about want to talk to them? :) >On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Chris wrote: > > > Since there's been a lot of talk about disabling mysql by default (and > > having another option available), the PostgreSQL people are pretty excited > > about this and are keen to see what can be done about getting postgres > > enabled by default instead. > > > > What do people think about this? > >We're not bundling the library with PHP, so we can not enable it by >default. > >Derick Chris Smith >> 92 Jarrett St Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW 2040 ...> T: + 61 2 9568 6866 F: + 61 2 9568 6733 W: http://www.squiz.net/ .....>> Open Source - Own it - Squiz.net ...../>
Reply to the guy and tell him that what PostgreSQL is really interested in is a level playing field. Enough with the MySQL bias already... We aren't seeking to be favoured. Chris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Smith" <csmith@squiz.net> To: <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:06 PM Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Fwd: Re: enabling postgresql by default > This sort of says it all. Does someone with more of an idea of what they're > talking about want to talk to them? :) > > > >On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Chris wrote: > > > > > Since there's been a lot of talk about disabling mysql by default (and > > > having another option available), the PostgreSQL people are pretty excited > > > about this and are keen to see what can be done about getting postgres > > > enabled by default instead. > > > > > > What do people think about this? > > > >We're not bundling the library with PHP, so we can not enable it by > >default. > > > >Derick > > > Chris Smith > > >> 92 Jarrett St Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW 2040 ...> > T: + 61 2 9568 6866 > F: + 61 2 9568 6733 > W: http://www.squiz.net/ > .....>> Open Source - Own it - Squiz.net ...../> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html >
They're stopping mysql by default (and enable sqlite instead). Others are saying "nothing by default".... I'm trying to say (badly) that we'd like postgres by default. At 03:21 PM 6/24/2003 +0800, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >Reply to the guy and tell him that what PostgreSQL is really interested in >is a level playing field. Enough with the MySQL bias already... We aren't >seeking to be favoured. > >Chris > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Chris Smith" <csmith@squiz.net> >To: <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org> >Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:06 PM >Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Fwd: Re: enabling postgresql by default > > > > This sort of says it all. Does someone with more of an idea of what >they're > > talking about want to talk to them? :) > > > > > > >On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Chris wrote: > > > > > > > Since there's been a lot of talk about disabling mysql by default (and > > > > having another option available), the PostgreSQL people are pretty >excited > > > > about this and are keen to see what can be done about getting postgres > > > > enabled by default instead. > > > > > > > > What do people think about this? > > > > > >We're not bundling the library with PHP, so we can not enable it by > > >default. > > > > > >Derick > > > > > > Chris Smith > > > > >> 92 Jarrett St Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW 2040 ...> > > T: + 61 2 9568 6866 > > F: + 61 2 9568 6733 > > W: http://www.squiz.net/ > > .....>> Open Source - Own it - Squiz.net ...../> > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html > > > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings Chris Smith >> 92 Jarrett St Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW 2040 ...> T: + 61 2 9568 6866 F: + 61 2 9568 6733 W: http://www.squiz.net/ .....>> Open Source - Own it - Squiz.net ...../>
> I'm trying to say (badly) that we'd like postgres by default. Yes, but I think we'd have more luck asking for 'level playing field'. That fair to everyone then, otherwise we just become the next MySQL! Chris
All I want is to automagically configure postgreswql if the client libs are found. Not include our connect lib in their distribution. On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Chris Smith wrote: > This sort of says it all. Does someone with more of an idea of what they're > talking about want to talk to them? :) > > > >On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Chris wrote: > > > > > Since there's been a lot of talk about disabling mysql by default (and > > > having another option available), the PostgreSQL people are pretty excited > > > about this and are keen to see what can be done about getting postgres > > > enabled by default instead. > > > > > > What do people think about this? > > > >We're not bundling the library with PHP, so we can not enable it by > >default. > > > >Derick > > > Chris Smith > > >> 92 Jarrett St Leichhardt, Sydney, NSW 2040 ...> > T: + 61 2 9568 6866 > F: + 61 2 9568 6733 > W: http://www.squiz.net/ > .....>> Open Source - Own it - Squiz.net ...../> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html >
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 03:47, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > I'm trying to say (badly) that we'd like postgres by default.
>
> Yes, but I think we'd have more luck asking for 'level playing field'. That
> fair to everyone then, otherwise we just become the next MySQL!
>
yes, but they are talking are already about switching from mysql to
sqlite. if they are going to switch to *something* i see no reason not
to lobby that they switch to postgresql. the problem with mysql arose
from them switching their libraries to gpl licensing (which forces
people to either use gpl or buy a license from mysql), we're never going
to do that, so php never has to worry about that.
imo sqlite is a "step back" from mysql as far as capabilities go; i
think many of their users would rather have a "step forward", and
postgresql can offer that.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Better Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On 24 Jun 2003 at 11:22, Robert Treat wrote: > imo sqlite is a "step back" from mysql as far as capabilities go; i > think many of their users would rather have a "step forward", and > postgresql can offer that. Well, let's look from other direction. If php chooses sqllite, lot of people are going to crib for loss of mysql, which is not good for php community. Postgresql would not enjoy overnight popularity because mysql to postgresql will not be a drop-in switch. So somebody, sane and neutral enough in php community need to hammer this point that it is in there beneft to switch to postgresql. Let's not push it too much. If it doesn't happen, we don't have much to lose but they do have. Let's make a point and move aside. If they think forward, they will consider. Just my opinion. I know that in any kind of marketing, it does not work that way. But I believe unless both side see the value, no point pushing it. Just a thought.. Bye Shridhar -- Rocky's Lemma of Innovation Prevention: Unless the results are known in advance, funding agencies will reject the proposal.
But my argument is that NOTHING should be enabled "by default" unless it
already has connection libraries. Including a static (i.e. not updated
when postgresql gets updated) connection library is a bad thing, since any
bug in the connection lib will live on in the staticly linked connection
code shipped with PHP.
If the connection libs for DB2, Oracle, and Postgresql are found on the
machine, then PHP should autoconfigure to use them. If they're not there,
then including them in the php distro is short sighted and likely to cause
as many problems as it fixes.
Keep in mind that including the MySQL libs with PHP was a mixed bag, since
using a different mysql connect lib for PHP and another for apache if you
use mod_auth_mysql would result in a crashing server situation that was
suboptimal.
Rather than include ANY interface, I think it would be wiser to only use
the connect libs that are already on a server. I got the feeling Sterling
agreed with me on that point, by the way.
On 24 Jun 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 03:47, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > > I'm trying to say (badly) that we'd like postgres by default.
> >
> > Yes, but I think we'd have more luck asking for 'level playing field'. That
> > fair to everyone then, otherwise we just become the next MySQL!
> >
>
> yes, but they are talking are already about switching from mysql to
> sqlite. if they are going to switch to *something* i see no reason not
> to lobby that they switch to postgresql. the problem with mysql arose
> from them switching their libraries to gpl licensing (which forces
> people to either use gpl or buy a license from mysql), we're never going
> to do that, so php never has to worry about that.
>
> imo sqlite is a "step back" from mysql as far as capabilities go; i
> think many of their users would rather have a "step forward", and
> postgresql can offer that.
>
> Robert Treat
> --
> Build A Better Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 11:36, scott.marlowe wrote:
<snip/reorder>
> Rather than include ANY interface, I think it would be wiser to only use
> the connect libs that are already on a server. I got the feeling Sterling
> agreed with me on that point, by the way.
>
Given that Sterling recommend the inclusion of sqlite as a default, i
don't see that's how you came to that conclusion...
> But my argument is that NOTHING should be enabled "by default" unless it
> already has connection libraries. Including a static (i.e. not updated
> when postgresql gets updated) connection library is a bad thing, since any
> bug in the connection lib will live on in the staticly linked connection
> code shipped with PHP.
>
> If the connection libs for DB2, Oracle, and Postgresql are found on the
> machine, then PHP should autoconfigure to use them. If they're not there,
> then including them in the php distro is short sighted and likely to cause
> as many problems as it fixes.
>
> Keep in mind that including the MySQL libs with PHP was a mixed bag, since
> using a different mysql connect lib for PHP and another for apache if you
> use mod_auth_mysql would result in a crashing server situation that was
> suboptimal.
>
All of which are valid view points, but I think miss the mark since the
php guys seem to have moved past the point of deciding "if something
should be included" and are now deciding "what will be included".
If they want to level the playing field and not include anything I am
fine with that, and I think we all could support that, but unless you
think it is detrimental to postgresql for them to include static pgsql
libs in php (which I do not) it seems we should lobby for them to put in
postgresql libs over anything else.
Robert Treat
> > --
> > Build A Better Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Guys, > If they want to level the playing field and not include anything I am > fine with that, and I think we all could support that, but unless you > think it is detrimental to postgresql for them to include static pgsql > libs in php (which I do not) it seems we should lobby for them to put in > postgresql libs over anything else. mmmm ... one problem: No PostgreSQL for Windows, yet. A lot of PHP developers work on Windows .... -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On 24 Jun 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 11:36, scott.marlowe wrote: > <snip/reorder> > > Rather than include ANY interface, I think it would be wiser to only use > > the connect libs that are already on a server. I got the feeling Sterling > > agreed with me on that point, by the way. > > > > Given that Sterling recommend the inclusion of sqlite as a default, i > don't see that's how you came to that conclusion... He informed us it was happening, I don't think it was necessarily his idea. If you read the earlier posts in this thread, you'll see he was against inclusion of MySQL's connect libs as well. > > But my argument is that NOTHING should be enabled "by default" unless it > > already has connection libraries. Including a static (i.e. not updated > > when postgresql gets updated) connection library is a bad thing, since any > > bug in the connection lib will live on in the staticly linked connection > > code shipped with PHP. > > > > If the connection libs for DB2, Oracle, and Postgresql are found on the > > machine, then PHP should autoconfigure to use them. If they're not there, > > then including them in the php distro is short sighted and likely to cause > > as many problems as it fixes. > > > > Keep in mind that including the MySQL libs with PHP was a mixed bag, since > > using a different mysql connect lib for PHP and another for apache if you > > use mod_auth_mysql would result in a crashing server situation that was > > suboptimal. > > > > All of which are valid view points, but I think miss the mark since the > php guys seem to have moved past the point of deciding "if something > should be included" and are now deciding "what will be included". > > If they want to level the playing field and not include anything I am > fine with that, and I think we all could support that, but unless you > think it is detrimental to postgresql for them to include static pgsql > libs in php (which I do not) it seems we should lobby for them to put in > postgresql libs over anything else. And have the same issue where if you install mod_auth_pgsql in apache you get a crash prone server with two different libs? no thanks. the whole idea of shared objects is that you use the version the sysadmin installed on the box, not what your package came with. If I wanted to have umpteen different unshared-shared libs (i.e. dll hell) crashing my aps randomly, I'd be running windows.
Josh Berkus wrote: >>If they want to level the playing field and not include anything I am >>fine with that, and I think we all could support that, but unless you >>think it is detrimental to postgresql for them to include static pgsql >>libs in php (which I do not) it seems we should lobby for them to put in >>postgresql libs over anything else. > > > mmmm ... one problem: No PostgreSQL for Windows, yet. > > A lot of PHP developers work on Windows .... > A few points: 1) WRT MySQL and Postgres, we're talking about the client library. The Postgres client library (libpq) does compile on Windows already (and has for several releases at least). 2) The MySQL client library source code has been bundled in-total in PHP for a while now, which made enabling it by default practical. For them to do the same with Postgres, someone has to do the work to lift the client library code out of the Postgres source tree, and integrate it into the PHP source tree (assuming of course that the PHP group would allow it). 3) WRT sqlite, it is already bundled into PHP's source tree -- the entire thing, not just a client. In other words, enabling sqlite by default gives them a SQL interface to flat files, with no other dependencies (compared to MySQL and Postgres where you need the server installed somewhere for the client to be worth anything to you). This is useful in hosted environments where a database is either not offered or is offered at additional cost. My conclusions are: - By not enabling MySQL by default, the playing field *is* being leveled - Integrating sqlite in PHP makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of the PHP group, and doesn't offer any real competition to either MySQL or PostgreSQL. If anything it lowers the bar for new people to learn SQL, and eventually those same people will migrate up. Joe
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 12:25, Joe Conway wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>If they want to level the playing field and not include anything I am
> >>fine with that, and I think we all could support that, but unless you
> >>think it is detrimental to postgresql for them to include static pgsql
> >>libs in php (which I do not) it seems we should lobby for them to put in
> >>postgresql libs over anything else.
> >
> >
> > mmmm ... one problem: No PostgreSQL for Windows, yet.
> >
> > A lot of PHP developers work on Windows ....
> >
>
> A few points:
>
> 1) WRT MySQL and Postgres, we're talking about the client library. The
> Postgres client library (libpq) does compile on Windows already (and has
> for several releases at least).
>
This would be a huge benefit for postgresql, as windows/php developers
would have a much easier time getting connections to postgresql servers.
Granted they'd still probably need a *nix server running, but it would
still be helpful for us.
> 2) The MySQL client library source code has been bundled in-total in PHP
> for a while now, which made enabling it by default practical. For them
> to do the same with Postgres, someone has to do the work to lift the
> client library code out of the Postgres source tree, and integrate it
> into the PHP source tree (assuming of course that the PHP group would
> allow it).
>
> 3) WRT sqlite, it is already bundled into PHP's source tree -- the
> entire thing, not just a client. In other words, enabling sqlite by
> default gives them a SQL interface to flat files, with no other
> dependencies (compared to MySQL and Postgres where you need the server
> installed somewhere for the client to be worth anything to you). This is
> useful in hosted environments where a database is either not offered or
> is offered at additional cost.
>
Didn't realize they had the whole thing already, it does change the
equation somewhat.
> My conclusions are:
> - By not enabling MySQL by default, the playing field *is* being leveled
> - Integrating sqlite in PHP makes a lot of sense from the standpoint of
> the PHP group, and doesn't offer any real competition to either MySQL
> or PostgreSQL. If anything it lowers the bar for new people to learn
> SQL, and eventually those same people will migrate up.
>
Maybe I'm selling sqlite short, but I've never cared for it myself.
Granted a full fledge rdbms is overkill for a lot of the web sites that
are out there, but I'd probably recommend folks use flat files...
If that's their final outcome we're certainly no worse off than we are
now.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Hi! I donŽt know whether autoconf can do that, but why not enabling postgresql by default, with autoconf searching for installed libs/headers and falling back on the version delivered with PHP in the case no libs are found? Christoph Nelles -- Mit freundlichen Grüssen Evil Azrael mailto:evilazrael@evilazrael.de
scott.marlowe wrote: <snip> > Rather than include ANY interface, I think it would be wiser to only use > the connect libs that are already on a server. I got the feeling Sterling > agreed with me on that point, by the way. <snip> Hi Scott, You should be CC'ing at least Sterling or the PHP-Dev mailing list with this thread. It makes sense, but will have absolutely no affect on anything without the right people being part of the conversation. :-( They're not going to be afraid of us suggesting "PostgreSQL by default instead of SQLLite". Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift
Hi Justin > You should be CC'ing at least Sterling or the PHP-Dev mailing list with > this thread. It makes sense, but will have absolutely no affect on > anything without the right people being part of the conversation. I think this discussion is over. Zeev says: > That implies that this discussion exists; It doesn't; We're not > discussing the addition of PostgreSQL as a bundle in PHP as an alternative > to MySQL. > > Zeev Derrick writes > > 2) Will any consideration of including a non-commercial db client as > > default will EVER be considered regardless of circumstances. > > No, we're not going to bundle new libraries anymore, unless there is a > *very* good reason for it. Regards Conni