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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
%\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
Jan Wieck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BSent: 2004$BG/(J2$B7n(J2$BF|(J 10:34
(BTo: Steve Tibbett
(BCc: 'David Garamond'; 'Dann Corbit'; 'Claudio Natoli'; 'Andrew Dunstan';
(B'pgsql-hackers-win32'; 'PostgreSQL-development'
(BSubject: 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
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
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.
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
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:
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
