Re: Commercial binary support? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Oleg Bartunov |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Commercial binary support? |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.GSO.4.58.0311231431050.13158@ra.sai.msu.su Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Commercial binary support? ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Commercial binary support?
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with > > Logictree Systems TSearch2? > > Actually to some degree, yes. Of course a lot would depend on the type > of contract you have with them you may be "responsible" for that code. > However, I would love to see those patches. Nigel, does tsearch2 in 7.4 still has the problem ? I apologies if we miss your patches but certainly we're interested in clear explanation of the problem. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua Drake > > > > And if I'd made no modifications to the code? I > > suppose I could have insisted that a separate contract be taken for the supply > > and support on top of the app. development contract. In fact, having written > > that I'm starting to think that should be the case. > > > > > > > It is purely a business thing, liability and the like. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > Joshua Drake > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > Regards, Oleg _____________________________________________________________ Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet, Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia) Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/ phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
pgsql-hackers by date: