| From: | Austin Gonyou <austin(at)coremetrics(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Commercial binary support? |
| Date: | 2003-11-19 18:48:57 |
| Message-ID: | 1069267736.2461.19.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:31, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> > > I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
> > > providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
> > > supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?
> >
> > Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
> > companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
> > and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.
>
> We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
I agree. We shouldn't have to really care, so long as there are
guidelines for which platforms/distributions/sources are supported.
Thus, the binaries provided == all of that combined. I think that the
aforementioned requirements is easier, and more intelligent to require
of a support organization, but our dev guys were complaining a bit and
sought this as a resolution to their complaints. I don't see it being
entirely feasible, but we'll see.
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier PostgreSQL, Inc (http://www.pgsql.com)
> Email: scrappy(at)pgsql(dot)com Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
--
Austin Gonyou <austin(at)coremetrics(dot)com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-11-19 18:56:08 | Re: Commercial binary support? |
| Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-11-19 18:45:08 | Re: logical column position |