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

Re: Re: On the _need_ to vacuum...

From: Paul M Foster <paulf(at)quillandmouse(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: On the _need_ to vacuum...
Date: 2001-04-29 16:31:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:22:53PM -0700, Alfred Perlstein wrote:

> * geustace(at)godzone(dot)net(dot)nz <geustace(at)godzone(dot)net(dot)nz> [010428 21:44] wrote:
> > I am rather staggered by a developer considering it necessary to
> > attempt to cooerce the core development team into including a patch.
> I'm assuming you refer to the updated page at:

I have to agree with this. Alfred's free to do what he likes. I don't
recall that he mentions whether this patch is Open Source. If it isn't,
then this is all moot. It can't be included in PostgreSQL because of
licensing issues. If it _is_ Open Source, then Alfred is free to charge
for it. _However_, he makes the threat of potential legal action if you
should broadly disseminate a previously downloaded copy of the patch.
That's not only not Open Source, it's ANTI- Open Source. On that basis
alone, I would be averse to including it in PostgreSQL. The coercion
issue is secondary and childish.


In response to


pgsql-general by date

Next:From: geustaceDate: 2001-04-29 16:53:42
Subject: Re: On the _need_ to vacuum...
Previous:From: Mini-meDate: 2001-04-29 09:36:38
Subject: Re: Strange PG error

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group