Re: Commercial binary support? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Hello,
> 
>   I think what the person is looking for is:
> 
>   COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
> 
>   They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
> to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
> work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
> version of PostgreSQL.
> 
>   Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
> Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.

That was sort of my point. I currently have a 7.3 installation for which I have
my own patches applied, for tsearch2, and for which I run my own CVS of the
cpntrob module. It seems this module isn't maintained in the community, what
with it being a 7.4 thing really. My company is the sys. admin., DBA and DB
developer for the project, except for the production server sys. admin.. These
mods weren't applied because the client was asking for them but because I knew
the faults existed, even though the project wasn't kicking them.

Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with
Logictree Systems TSearch2? 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