Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Greg Stark wrote: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made. Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so. Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd GNU Postgresql they could do it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code. I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code? Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Jan Wieck wrote: Greg Stark wrote: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made. Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so. Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd GNU Postgresql they could do it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code. I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code? We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from doing the same. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: Greg Stark wrote: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made. Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so. Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd GNU Postgresql they could do it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code. I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code? We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from doing the same. The BSD license allows everyone to use the code in proprietary software. But that doesn't mean that you can relicense THAT code. I seem to remember that one of our arguments against license changes was that we'd need written agreement from all former contributors. Is that wrong? Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Jan Wieck wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Jan Wieck wrote: Greg Stark wrote: Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made. Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so. Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd GNU Postgresql they could do it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code. I released my contributions under the BSD license. A license change is only possible when accepted by the Copyright holder. I might have missed something, but when did Microsoft get the Copyright of my code? We allow companies to make commercial versions of PostgreSQL that use a proprietary license, so I don't see you could prevent Microsoft from doing the same. The BSD license allows everyone to use the code in proprietary software. But that doesn't mean that you can relicense THAT code. I seem to remember that one of our arguments against license changes was that we'd need written agreement from all former contributors. Is that wrong? You know, that is a good point. When someone makes a proprietary version of PostgreSQL, what are they licensing as proprietary? The binary or our source code? When someone takes our code, modifies it, then makes a propriety version, are their additions only proprietary? -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: the point is that PostgreSQL is no GNU product, never has been and if someone intends to he shall do so after yanking out the contributions I made. Note that when you released your contributions you did so under a license that imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do so. Likewise if someone wanted to release a GPL'd GNU Postgresql they could do it. And nobody could force either to yank anyone's code. -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Greg Stark wrote: imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do I have often wondered, in a completely off-topic and unproductive sort of way, if exactly that has not already been done by an unscrupulous or semi-scrupulous commercial vendor. This has been done in the past (a certain vendor's tcp/ip stack comes to mind), but I wonder if anyone ever pulled it with this project. Merlin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Merlin Moncure [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Stark wrote: imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do I have often wondered, in a completely off-topic and unproductive sort of way, if exactly that has not already been done by an unscrupulous or semi-scrupulous commercial vendor. This has been done in the past (a certain vendor's tcp/ip stack comes to mind), but I wonder if anyone ever pulled it with this project. There's nothing unscrupulous about including BSD's TCP/IP stack in a commercial product. In fact, the main reason we all use TCP/IP today is because of the BSD license. It was just another protocol at one time. If I remember correctly, Postgres was used as the basis for the Illustra commercial product, which was bought by Informix and merged into Informix Universal Server. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
-Original Message- From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 12:28 PM To: Greg Stark Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left? Greg Stark wrote: imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free to do I have often wondered, in a completely off-topic and unproductive sort of way, if exactly that has not already been done by an unscrupulous or semi-scrupulous commercial vendor. This has been done in the past (a certain vendor's tcp/ip stack comes to mind), but I wonder if anyone ever pulled it with this project. It would be pretty ridiculous for anyone to do that. After all, how painful is it to add the BSD notice? And lacking the notice, you would be in violation of the license. Not to say that it hasn't happened or won't happen. But it would be really stupid. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Steve Tibbett wrote: I think users would prefer %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL - that's what Mozilla and some other projects do, although still other projects do %ProgramFiles%\GNU\PostgreSQL. What would be the reason to put PostgreSQL into %ProgramFiles%\GNU ? Jan I'd vote for %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL. - Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Garamond Sent: January 23, 2004 2:42 AM To: Dann Corbit Cc: Claudio Natoli; Andrew Dunstan; pgsql-hackers-win32; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left? Dann Corbit wrote: But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL More properly: %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL Another suggestion: %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL (or even %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL 7.5). Apache2 uses %ProgramFiles%\Apache Group\Apache2. Note: Many software uses the %ProgramFiles%\VendorName\ProductName convention, but apparently Microsoft itself puts stuffs right under %ProgramFiles% (%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Money, \Internet Explorer, \Windows Media Player, etc). And then, if they don't like that, let them put it wherever they darn well please. -- dave ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
The suggested location is %ProgramFiles%\CompanyName\ProductName but GNU products often don't have a "company", so some projects use GNU as the company name. I'd rather it was simply %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL myself. - Steve -Original Message- From: Jan Wieck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2004年2月2日 10:34 To: Steve Tibbett Cc: 'David Garamond'; 'Dann Corbit'; 'Claudio Natoli'; 'Andrew Dunstan'; 'pgsql-hackers-win32'; 'PostgreSQL-development' Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left? Steve Tibbett wrote: I think users would prefer %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL - that's what Mozilla and some other projects do, although still other projects do %ProgramFiles%\GNU\PostgreSQL. What would be the reason to put PostgreSQL into %ProgramFiles%\GNU ? Jan I'd vote for %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL. - Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Garamond Sent: January 23, 2004 2:42 AM To: Dann Corbit Cc: Claudio Natoli; Andrew Dunstan; pgsql-hackers-win32; PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left? Dann Corbit wrote: But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL More properly: %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL Another suggestion: %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL (or even %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL 7.5). Apache2 uses %ProgramFiles%\Apache Group\Apache2. Note: Many software uses the %ProgramFiles%\VendorName\ProductName convention, but apparently Microsoft itself puts stuffs right under %ProgramFiles% (%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Money, \Internet Explorer, \Windows Media Player, etc). And then, if they don't like that, let them put it wherever they darn well please. -- dave ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Dann Corbit wrote: I may be able to help on the localization and path stuff. We have solved those issues for our port of 7.1.3, and I expect the work for 7.5 to be extremely similar. Where can I get the latest tarball for Win32 development? CVS HEAD now has all the Win32 work. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Tom Lane wrote: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In this way, no one ever has the rename file open while we are holding the locks, and we can loop without holding an exclusive lock on pg_shadow, and file writes remain in order. You're doing this where exactly, and are certain that you are holding no locks why exactly? And if you aren't holding a lock, what prevents concurrency bugs? I am looking now at the relcache file, pg_pwd and pg_group. I am sure I am holding some locks, but not an exclusive lock on e.g. pg_shadow. I am working on a patch now. I don't expect to eliminate the looping for rename, but to eliminate holding exclusive locks while doing the rename to a file actively being read. By using realfile.new, the first rename is only being done on a file that is never opened, just renamed, which should be quick. I can't think of a cleaner solution. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Dann Corbit wrote: But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL More properly: %ProgramFiles%\PostgreSQL Another suggestion: %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL (or even %ProgramFiles%\PGDG\PostgreSQL 7.5). Apache2 uses %ProgramFiles%\Apache Group\Apache2. Note: Many software uses the %ProgramFiles%\VendorName\ProductName convention, but apparently Microsoft itself puts stuffs right under %ProgramFiles% (%ProgramFiles%\Microsoft Money, \Internet Explorer, \Windows Media Player, etc). And then, if they don't like that, let them put it wherever they darn well please. -- dave ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Claudio Natoli wrote: * installation directory issues (/usr/local/pgsql/bin won't work too well outside of the MingW environment :-) Clearly we will need an installer for a binary distribution. Yes. To be more precise, my point was that doing so will require some changes to the code (ie. configure/compile time constants like PKGLIBDIR just won't do us any good). But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL For right now, I'd suggest a directory that doesn't have whitespace and localization issues :-P Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see a href=http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html;http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html/a ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Hi all, Might I just suggest good old C:\PostgreSQL ? MS SQL server defaults to C:\MSSQL, so I don't think that a directory in the root path is unreasonable. Further, it makes it look more important if it installs in the root directory :) All the best, -David Felstead Claudio Natoli wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Claudio Natoli wrote: * installation directory issues (/usr/local/pgsql/bin won't work too well outside of the MingW environment :-) Clearly we will need an installer for a binary distribution. Yes. To be more precise, my point was that doing so will require some changes to the code (ie. configure/compile time constants like PKGLIBDIR just won't do us any good). But for now I suggest that the default prefix on Windows is C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL For right now, I'd suggest a directory that doesn't have whitespace and localization issues :-P Cheers, Claudio This email and any attachments may contain privileged and confidential information and are intended for the named addressee only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this e-mail immediately. Any confidentiality, privilege or copyright is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been sent to you in error. It is your responsibility to check this e-mail and any attachments for viruses. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Where can I get the latest tarball for Win32 development? There isn't a specific Win32 tarball, but you can get nightly snapshots from the usual place (ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/dev/), or pull down the tip from CVS. Reading back through the thread though, you'll find that the code is not yet compilable/runnable, and you might want to rein in your enthusiasm for just two or three weeks more (which might not be easy :-) for these last couple bits (which are nearly ready) to get sent, approved, + applied. Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see a href=http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html;http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html/a ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] What's left?
Might I just suggest good old C:\PostgreSQL ? MS SQL server defaults to C:\MSSQL, so I don't think that a directory in the root path is unreasonable. Further, it makes it look more important if it installs in the root directory :) Don't do that. I hate software that does that. To me it immediately screams WE DON'T CARE ABOUT DOING THINGS RIGHT!. my 2cents Later Rob ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
