Josh, Hans, et. al.
Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY.
Its content is no longer appropriate for the Hackers mailing list, and we get
enough traffic. Flamewars are not a part of our community.
--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end of
Hans, Josh,
Please take this thread OFF LIST IMMEDIATELY.
Sorry. Not enough coffee this AM -- should know better than to send e-mail
when I'm short beans.
Overreacted a bit, there.Apologies.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
---(end
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 11:43, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
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
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
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.
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
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.
The problem was memory allocations made through malloc and family were not
being checked for failure
On 19 Nov 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded. There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not
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.
However, I would love to see those patches.
Sure. Should be in the archive. The version for 7.4 was submitted and applied
pre-release but if you really do want the 7.3 runnable stuff I can send it. It
was only the unchecked returns from malloc and family patch in the snowball
directory. I
Oops, sorry folks. That was only meant to go to Joshua.
On Sat, 22 Nov 2003, Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
However, I would love to see those patches.
Sure. Should be in the archive. The version for 7.4 was submitted and applied
...
---(end of
On 2003.11.19 14:17 Austin Gonyou wrote:
All,
I sincerely apologize for possibly starting a flame war, I wasn't aware
this might be a hot-button issue. Hopefully some good will come of it
none-the-less, like others who come after me might see the reasons our
db application developers want
If by up to date you mean 7.4, your probably going to have to wait, but
I believe that Command Prompt, dbExperts, Red Hat, and SRA all have some
type of binary based support available.
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 17:19, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to
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
Robert Treat wrote:
If by up to date you mean 7.4, your probably going to have to wait, but
I believe that Command Prompt, dbExperts, Red Hat, and SRA all have some
type of binary based support available.
Don't forget to mention us ... ;).
Cheers,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
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
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:31, 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
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.
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
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*
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
Hello
Tell me if I am significantly wrong but Command Prompt PostgreSQL is
nothing more than Open Source PostgreSQL including some application
server stuff, some propriertary PL/Perl || PL/PHP and not much more.
Ahh no.
First our PL/Perl and PL/PHP is not propiertary in any way. It is open
All,
I sincerely apologize for possibly starting a flame war, I wasn't aware
this might be a hot-button issue. Hopefully some good will come of it
none-the-less, like others who come after me might see the reasons our
db application developers want this type of go to support.
I would also
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded. There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not been to startled by this
outburst :-)
23 matches
Mail list logo
