Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> While the major distributions support LSB, the major distributions
> also have PostgreSQL packages available and so will likely not need
> the init script shipped in the source.
My counter-argument to that would be that the SuSE distribution's
version of PostgreSQL is so out-of-date that we don't install it. It
also doesn't enable debug info or integer date times. So we switched
to build from source before we actually got as far as loading any
data. I'm inclined to recommend the same to others.
> it might be best to keep both, if they are maintained.
Sounds good to me; although, now that there is a full LSB version, I
should probably withdraw my meager suggested patch to the existing
linux script, eh? (If they're using an LSB conforming implementation,
they'll want the linux-lsb script, and if they're not, the suggested
patch has no point, I think.) Unless someone thinks otherwise, I'll
drop that patch to the linux script from the CF page. Any thoughts on
what that script needs, if anything?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-08-31 20:20:59|
|Subject: Re: \d+ for long view definitions? |
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2009-08-31 20:13:11|
|Subject: Re: \d+ for long view definitions?|