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

Re: blatantly a bug in the documentation

From: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "A(dot) Kretschmer" <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com>
Subject: Re: blatantly a bug in the documentation
Date: 2008-11-25 01:42:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Monday 24 November 2008 09:10:29 Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> 
> > Dave Page wrote:
> >> That would defeat the point. Not that I have any great feelings either
> >> way, but fwiw, Microsoft and Oracle both create a sample database
> >> iirc.
> >
> > Last I checked, MS did it optionally only, no?
> Yes, but it defaults on iirc. We can emulate that behaviour in an
> installer (and do in Postgres Plus for example), but that doesn't help
> users of other distributions.

We actually have such a database on pgfoundry already 
(, which i think 
devrim may have packaged into an rpm; it wouldn't hurt to add it to the win32 
installer, but would you feel better if it were a contrib module or 

Robert Treat

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: ITAGAKI TakahiroDate: 2008-11-25 02:42:00
Subject: Comments to Synchronous replication patch v3
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-11-25 01:20:58
Subject: Re: WIP: default values for function parameters

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