Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?) - Mailing list pgsql-ports

From Lamar Owen
Subject Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Date
Msg-id 39FEF55E.8BE4A3A7@wgcr.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)  (Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>)
List pgsql-ports
Karl DeBisschop wrote:
>
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> > As to why the package is split, well, it is highly useful to many people
> > to have a PostgreSQL _client_ installation that accesses a central
> > database server -- there is no need to have a postmaster and a full
> > backend when all you need is psql and the libraries and documentation
> > that goes along with psql.
>
> My personal experience is that the way the PostgreSQL RPMs are split is very good. It meshes nicely with other
dependenciesso that I don't need to install extra RPMs on our servers. I for one would not like to see that change. 

And I agree -- and have no plans to change.  If anything the RPMset will
increase in number, not decrease.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

pgsql-ports by date:

Previous
From: Karl DeBisschop
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Next
From: Scott Ribe
Date:
Subject: pgsql on Mac OS X?