From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_locks view and user locks |
Date: | 2004-09-13 20:39:49 |
Message-ID: | 21071.1095107989@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> That's the whole problem. I don't think anyone objects to the user lock
> principle, but as long as it's GPL, we won't support it. It was
> probably a mistake to accept this module in the first place. I believe
> some people have been trying to get the module relicensed, but that
> evidently never happened.
I said some time ago that I would pester contrib authors about fixing
license issues, but it still hasn't gotten to the top of my to-do list :-(
AFAIK nothing at all has been done on this score.
If Merlin is hot about contrib/userlock right now, he's welcome to try
to contact the original author and get this dealt with.
The point about not importing documentation from a mislicensed contrib
module is valid IMHO.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-09-13 21:31:15 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_locks view and user locks |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-09-13 20:12:32 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_locks view and user locks |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-09-13 21:04:03 | Re: pg_locks view and user locks |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2004-09-13 20:12:32 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_locks view and user locks |