On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I had a look at this some time ago and I must admit that I find it
> pretty interesting. The technology choices make it
> obviously impossible to merge -- not only the particular Perl modules
> used, but the mere fact that Perl is used (and
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera writes:
Tom Lane escribió:
Yeah. Although the project policy is that we don't require Perl to
build on Unix, there was a bug in the makefiles that made it effectively
required, and nobody noticed for several years. I don't think it would
be a hard sel
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Tom Lane escribió:
>>> Yeah. Although the project policy is that we don't require Perl to
>>> build on Unix, there was a bug in the makefiles that made it effectively
>>> required, and nobody noticed for several years.
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> Yeah. Although the project policy is that we don't require Perl to
>> build on Unix, there was a bug in the makefiles that made it effectively
>> required, and nobody noticed for several years. I don't think it would
>> be a hard sell to change that
Tom Lane escribió:
> Dave Page writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> Yep, it's only on UNIX-ish systems where Perl isn't necessarily
> >> required, and realistically I think it is probably present on nearly
> >> all of those, too.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> Yeah. Althoug
Dave Page writes:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Yep, it's only on UNIX-ish systems where Perl isn't necessarily
>> required, and realistically I think it is probably present on nearly
>> all of those, too.
> Exactly.
Yeah. Although the project policy is that we don't
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yep, it's only on UNIX-ish systems where Perl isn't necessarily
> required, and realistically I think it is probably present on nearly
> all of those, too.
Exactly.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgs
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>>> I had a look at this some time ago and I must admit that I find it
>>> pretty interesting. The technology choices make it
>>>
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
>> I had a look at this some time ago and I must admit that I find it
>> pretty interesting. The technology choices make it
>> obviously impossible to merge -- not only the particular P
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I had a look at this some time ago and I must admit that I find it
> pretty interesting. The technology choices make it
> obviously impossible to merge -- not only the particular Perl modules
> used, but the mere fact that Perl is used (and
John Naylor escribió:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I was quite intrigued by a discussion that happened this past summer
> regarding generation of bootstrap files such as postgres.bki, and the
> associated pain points of maintaining the DATA() statements in catalog
> headers.
> It occurred to me that the
Hello everyone,
I was quite intrigued by a discussion that happened this past summer
regarding generation of bootstrap files such as postgres.bki, and the
associated pain points of maintaining the DATA() statements in catalog headers.
It occurred to me that the current system is backwards: Instead
12 matches
Mail list logo
