Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>
>>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 ...
>>
>>And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
>
>
>
> I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
> somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
> binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
> fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
> of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?
>
>
> Nigel Andrews
Nigel,
The name of the game is "warranty". PostgreSQL is BSD license and
therefore there is no warranty. A good support company will pick up the
risk and fix bugs, backport bugs and features, and provide "improved"
tarballs.
There is nothing special - it's just a service. However, it is a service
which is necessary because larger companies have to be sure that things
are working properly.
Regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
