On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 04:05:46PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Did I miss part of a thread here? :)
>
> I don't think so. Josh was responding to my post, id
> 19f22n-0007Gm-00.
'K, somehow I was missing whole threads, so went through arch
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 04:05:46PM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Did I miss part of a thread here? :)
I don't think so. Josh was responding to my post, id
19f22n-0007Gm-00.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toro
Did I miss part of a thread here? :)
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> > Arguments? None of those three address the obvious marketing benefit
> > of having replication shipping with the main tarball, I know.
>
> Those are pretty strong arguments ... and we can't let Postgre
Andrew,
> Arguments? None of those three address the obvious marketing benefit
> of having replication shipping with the main tarball, I know.
Those are pretty strong arguments ... and we can't let PostgreSQL new
"marketing awareness" sway us to the point that we start making technically
unfea
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:19:34PM -0400, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I thought that now would be a good time to ask whether it should
> live as a separate project, or whether it should be in contrib. I
I have run into a number of arguments for putting the project on
gborg. Unless I hear strong ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > - allows us to say that PostgreSQL ships with field-tested
> > replication in the source tree
>
>
> We have a winner! I think this one trumps all the rest.
Can we say field-tested and Java in the same sentence?
--
Bruce Momjian| http
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:35:38PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> > is this code really a "replacement" for rserv? There has been work on
> > rserv in contrib that I'm guessing was not used in the commercial
> > version. are we better off calling this rs
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:35:38PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> is this code really a "replacement" for rserv? There has been work on
> rserv in contrib that I'm guessing was not used in the commercial
> version. are we better off calling this rserv2 or something and letting
> both projects stand s
On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 02:23:21PM +0200, Kaare Rasmussen wrote:
> > pro contrib/:
>
> You have four pro arguments, two of which are for marketing and the
> other two are for lazyness :-)
For what it's worth, I don't think the marketing arguments are
nothing. That view was confirmed by what I he
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> - allows us to say that PostgreSQL ships with field-tested
> replication in the source tree
We have a winner! I think this one trumps all the rest.
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200307160920
-BEGIN PGP SI
> pro contrib/:
You have four pro arguments, two of which are for marketing and the other two
are for lazyness :-)
> pro gborg:
As you note, you will be more independent on gborg, so why not?
Maybe a wish for some official mention of this - and other important - gborg
project in the documenta
On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 16:19, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> pro contrib/:
> - it's not that big, and since it's replacing code now there, it
> won't bloat the tarball
>
> pro gborg:
> - allows rserv to attain a separate release schedule, and there's
> plenty of work to do on this code, so it may see
Hi all,
As many of you know, PostgreSQL, Inc. has determined that Real Soon
Now is the time to release their older version of eRServer as a
contribution back to the rserv project. That Has Not Happened Yet,
and I Do Not Speak For Them, and so on. But I have agreed to do some
of the legwork for t
13 matches
Mail list logo
