Re: Commercial binary support?

From: Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Austin Gonyou <austin(at)coremetrics(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Commercial binary support?
Date: 2003-11-23 11:33:43
Message-ID: Pine.GSO.4.58.0311231431050.13158@ra.sai.msu.su
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kurt Roeckx 2003-11-23 12:33:19 Re: [7.4] statistics collector: Protocol not supported
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2003-11-23 03:32:18 [7.4] statistics collector: Protocol not supported