Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Binaries vs Source

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Naz <lists(at)mrnaz(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Binaries vs Source
Date: 2008-09-10 09:48:29
Message-ID: 48C797ED.9000508@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-www
Naz wrote:
> Joshua Drake wrote:
>  > Oh.. actually I would find it very surprising if compile from source
> 
> Given that PG does not do in-place upgrades, I don't see a benefit to 
> using binary packages. Upgrading a source install is as easy as 
> upgrading a binary install given you have to do a dump/restore anyway.
> 
> Or am I missing something?

The upgrading might not be different, but the *installing* is much 
simpler.  With apt/yum/ports you can have PostgreSQL installed with 
literally 5 seconds of work and 2 minutes of waiting.  With a source 
install, you need to download, unpack, install dependencies, configure 
with all the options, make install, set up paths, set up data directory, 
initdb, write or obtain start script, set up start script, set up log 
files, set up log rotation, and other things.  Even thinking up that 
list takes longer than a binary install.  And you cannot do these things 
in less than 10 minutes, and if you are a first-time or occasional user, 
then it will probably take you an hour or more to do it properly.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Joshua DrakeDate: 2008-09-10 14:06:56
Subject: Re: Binaries vs Source
Previous:From: Joshua DrakeDate: 2008-09-10 03:39:16
Subject: Re: Wiki CSS

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Joshua DrakeDate: 2008-09-10 14:06:56
Subject: Re: Binaries vs Source
Previous:From: Markus WannerDate: 2008-09-10 06:58:04
Subject: Re: famous multi-process architectures

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group