Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 937d27e11001080842l6f07f816pe5dcbde16dddef3@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 16:33 +0000, Dave Page wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 15:12 +0000, Dave Page wrote: >> >> Hey Andrew >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Windows came late to the buildfarm. According to the CVS log, the buildfarm >> >> > client was first checked in in Sept 2004, got initial Mingw support in Jan >> >> > 2005 and MSVC support in March 2007, when we finally got some of the tools >> >> > sorted out. >> >> >> >> Right - but the buildfarm isn't a feature being offered to end users. >> >> >> > >> > Neither is this. These people are developers or DBAs after all. >> >> I know I'm a little slower than normal this week as I've had some sort >> of virus, but say what? I was kinda under the impression that >> developers/DBAs are end users of PostgreSQL. They make up a >> significant percentage of people that I know than install, configure >> and use it. > > My point is... if they are a developer or DBA, they aren't going to have > any trouble dealing with these issues. What issues? Lack of support from PGAN, or having to download and install a complex build environment weighing in at over a gigabyte of downloads, just to install an add-on? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: