* Bruno Wolff III (bruno@xxxxxxxx) wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 23:27:24 -0500, > Stephen Frost <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > About which vendors they use and what contracts they have and you might > > be able to figure out which vendors have such a clause. I don't know > > that such a request could compel the performance data out associated > > with a specific vendor when that's clearly against a license the state > > is currently under. > > But we already have an unofficial comment on the performance, we just don't > know what database postgres is being compared to. We've probably got a pretty good idea already. :) Besides, all you'd be able to get down to would be: what database vendors the state uses (probably more than one) filtered by which of those have such a clause in their license (also probably more than one), so in the end all you know is that it one of a set. Besides, I don't think it's a good move for us to go digging around trying to force the state to tell us and then assuming we can corrolate that to what Kevin was talking about. Both from a "it's really not that big a deal" and a "Kevin's a nice guy, let's not get him into trouble and make him feel like he can't say anything" perspective. :) Thanks, Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
