| From: | "Nigel J(dot) Andrews" <nandrews(at)investsystems(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "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: | 2003-11-19 19:10:35 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.21.0311191906240.12459-100000@ponder.fairway2k.co.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2003-11-19 19:27:31 | Re: Build farm |
| Previous Message | Mark Butler | 2003-11-19 19:00:38 | Re: Reentrant Locale API |