I think Postgres doesn't do enough to toot it's own horn. Look at it's website. Come on. Spice things up a bit. I'm inclined to think hardcore users purposely downplay the product because they see it as their secret sauce.
It actually looks extremely professional. In my experience, when you're trying to convince a large company to use a platform, you want a clean, business-case-focused site without excessive flair. Postgres nails it on those points, I think.
It's reminiscent of IBM, which is a huge compliment in this context.
The last major web site update was in late 2004, according to my bisection of the wayback machine. It's a project, not a company, and there is no marketing or design budget. For example, Magnus, who does some Windows maintenance, is a principal author of the new pg_receivexlog, and knows a lot about the SSL support also worries about the web-based mailing list archive program and the CSS of the manual, if memory serves.
Nobody's holding back anything. It would be wonderful if someone wanted to contribute their design skills to the web page or documentation -- talking to the mailing list pgsql-www is probably the way to do that. I am positive such a person would receive profuse appreciation, and maybe can parlay that into personal advantage if the fulfillment of the impact such improvements would have is not quite material enough by itself.
The project runs its own web site infrastructure (many regimes have come and went in Postgres' history, only semi-recently was pgfoundary decommissioned for the purpose of new projects), and it's a little arcane -- but if someone really wanted to take ownership to move things beyond maintenance into progress, perhaps changes could be made.
