Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
Date
Msg-id 4277B174.7020309@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 
>>Not really that ugly. It is just an extra compile step. Besides
>>you don't have to package it just because it is in the Tarball.
> 
> 
> Since you keep raising that point: Not packaging something is not a 
> valid solution to something being hard to package.

Except that I don't consider it difficult. I do it all the time, it can 
be easily scripted.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


-- 
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedication Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: A proper fix for the conversion-function problem