Обсуждение: Advantages page out of date

Hi all,

The 'Advantages' page at: http://www.postgresql.org/about/advantages/

seems a bit out of date -- looks like it was last touched around
9/2009. For example, one of the list items under "Technical Features"
claims:

|  <li>Hot stand-by (commercial solutions).</li>

i.e. it predates hot standby in-core. I think that list could be
fleshed out substantially with all the 9.x features, though on the
other hand it seems unwieldy to try stuffing too much in there.
Perhaps that page should just link to the Feature Matrix instead of
keeping its own Technical Features list?

Josh

No question.  It's not remotely the only page which is horribly out of date, either.

Think you could write up replacement text for the page?

----- Original Message -----
> Hi all,
> 
> The 'Advantages' page at:
>   http://www.postgresql.org/about/advantages/
> 
> seems a bit out of date -- looks like it was last touched around
> 9/2009. For example, one of the list items under "Technical Features"
> claims:
> 
> |  <li>Hot stand-by (commercial solutions).</li>
> 
> i.e. it predates hot standby in-core. I think that list could be
> fleshed out substantially with all the 9.x features, though on the
> other hand it seems unwieldy to try stuffing too much in there.
> Perhaps that page should just link to the Feature Matrix instead of
> keeping its own Technical Features list?
> 
> Josh
> 
> --
> Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www
> 

On 5/18/12, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> No question.  It's not remotely the only page which is horribly out of date,
> either.
>
> Think you could write up replacement text for the page?

Sure. A quick fix (patch: advantages_quickfix.diff) would be to remove
just that line, and leave Hot stand-by covered by the entry for
'Replication'.

I think a better solution (patch: advantages_link_matrix.diff) would
be to simply link the user to the Feature Matrix, instead of trying to
summarize some arbitrary subset of those features under Technical
Features.

If we did want to keep something like the Technical Features section
around, I think its scope should be narrowed down to features which
are rare, nonexistent, or limited in our competitors. Support for
Unicode, sub-selects, views, etc. may have been cutting-edge features
back when that page was written, but is not such a draw these days.
Things like SP-GiST, KNN, per-transaction durability control, SSI,
SE-Postgres, transactional DDL, JSON and Range types, etc. along with
a summary of why they're better than our competitor implementations
would make for an interesting read IMO. But this kind of prose seems
like it'd be better suited for the wiki anyway... there's not already
a page like that, other than the comparisons against MySQL, is there?
I'd be happy to help start a page like that.

Josh

On 5/18/12, Joshua Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> No question.  It's not remotely the only page which is horribly out of date,
> either.
>
> Think you could write up replacement text for the page?

Sure. A quick fix (patch: advantages_quickfix.diff) would be to remove
just that line, and leave Hot stand-by covered by the entry for
'Replication'.

I think a better solution (patch: advantages_link_matrix.diff) would
be to simply link the user to the Feature Matrix, instead of trying to
summarize some arbitrary subset of those features under Technical
Features.

If we did want to keep something like the Technical Features section
around, I think its scope should be narrowed down to features which
are rare, nonexistent, or limited in our competitors. Support for
Unicode, sub-selects, views, etc. may have been cutting-edge features
back when that page was written, but is not such a draw these days.
Things like SP-GiST, KNN, per-transaction durability control, SSI,
SE-Postgres, transactional DDL, JSON and Range types, etc. along with
a summary of why they're better than our competitor implementations
would make for an interesting read IMO. But this kind of prose seems
like it'd be better suited for the wiki anyway... there's not already
a page like that, other than the comparisons against MySQL, is there?
I'd be happy to help start a page like that.