From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Guillaume Smet <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chander Ganesan <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Guido Barosio <gbarosio(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL WWW <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Duplicate Events (and other stuff).. |
Date: | 2009-08-10 20:06:04 |
Message-ID: | 937d27e10908101306l5989b759nd3429f775be8dfe1@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 20:11 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 19:50 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> >> I would say no to forks, but yes to alternate distros.
>> >
>> > Where does Mammoth fall as it is Open Source?
>>
>> Is it a fork, or an add-on like Slony? If the latter, I'd say yes, it
>> should be included as it's clearly centered around 'pure' PostgreSQL.
>> If the former, then, well, no.
>
> Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. Mammoth is pure
> PostgreSQL with Replication added in (meaning the only thing we add is
> replication).
Meaning it's not pure PostgreSQL anymore :-p
>>
>> I'm just one opinion though - others (including you) may disagree.
>>
>
> I have never been known to keep my opinion to myself :P. I was more
> looking at it from the Open Source / Not Open Source perspective.
The way you asked it sounded like you thought it was my sole decision
- I know you didn't, but others might not.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | webmaster | 2009-08-13 14:00:01 | PostgreSQL moderation report: 2009-8-13 |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-08-10 20:02:42 | Re: Duplicate Events (and other stuff).. |