Commercial binary support?
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?
TIA
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
If by up to date you mean 7.4, your probably going to have to wait, but
I believe that Command Prompt, dbExperts, Red Hat, and SRA all have some
type of binary based support available.
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 17:19, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?TIA
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote:
If by up to date you mean 7.4, your probably going to have to wait, but
I believe that Command Prompt, dbExperts, Red Hat, and SRA all have some
type of binary based support available.
Don't forget to mention us ... ;).
Cheers,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?
Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.
We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
----
Marc G. Fournier PostgreSQL, Inc (http://www.pgsql.com)
Email: scrappy@pgsql.com Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 11:31, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
I agree. We shouldn't have to really care, so long as there are
guidelines for which platforms/distributions/sources are supported.
Thus, the binaries provided == all of that combined. I think that the
aforementioned requirements is easier, and more intelligent to require
of a support organization, but our dev guys were complaining a bit and
sought this as a resolution to their complaints. I don't see it being
entirely feasible, but we'll see.
----
Marc G. Fournier PostgreSQL, Inc (http://www.pgsql.com)
Email: scrappy@pgsql.com Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?
Nigel Andrews
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?Nigel Andrews
Nigel,
The name of the game is "warranty". PostgreSQL is BSD license and
therefore there is no warranty. A good support company will pick up the
risk and fix bugs, backport bugs and features, and provide "improved"
tarballs.
There is nothing special - it's just a service. However, it is a service
which is necessary because larger companies have to be sure that things
are working properly.
Regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
Hello,
I think what the person is looking for is:
COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
version of PostgreSQL.
Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.
It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?Nigel Andrews
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.orgJoshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
I think what the person is looking for is:
COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
version of PostgreSQL.Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Hello
Tell me if I am significantly wrong but Command Prompt PostgreSQL is
nothing more than "Open Source PostgreSQL" including some application
server stuff, some propriertary PL/Perl || PL/PHP and not much more.
Your anwer to this statement will be: But it is supported.
Can you tell me a reason why somebody should use a closed source version
of an Open Source product unless it contains some really significant
improvement (say native Win32 or something like that)?
Can you tell me ONE reason why this does not work for other PostgreSQL
companies such as `eval LONG LIST`?
Personally I think everybody can have its business strategy but what
REALLY sets me up is that this mail seems to mean that Command Prompt is
the only support company around which is actually WRONG!
In my opinion everybody who has enough skills can do this kind of job.
Being a support company has nothing to do with making a good Open Source
product a closed source product.
In my opinion giving something a new name and hiding away some code does
not mean commercial backing and it does not mean being the god of all
support companies.
Regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/660/816 40 77
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
Hello
Tell me if I am significantly wrong but Command Prompt PostgreSQL is
nothing more than "Open Source PostgreSQL" including some application
server stuff, some propriertary PL/Perl || PL/PHP and not much more.
Ahh no.
First our PL/Perl and PL/PHP is not propiertary in any way. It is open
source, you are free to download it and use it at your leisure.
Second we have better SSL support (although this is fixed in the
current cvs for 7.3 series)
Third we have compression over the connection stream for more
efficient connectivity over congested networks.
Also:
Included graphical management tools (also now open source, pgManage)
Modified shared memory management for better performance
A policy of a minimum of 2005 before we won't support PostgreSQL.
24 hour / 7 day support with a history of performance for the customer.
Oh... and:
Native, built in as part of the database replication.
Can you tell me a reason why somebody should use a closed source
version of an Open Source product unless it contains some really
significant improvement (say native Win32 or something like that)?
See above.
Can you tell me ONE reason why this does not work for other PostgreSQL
companies such as `eval LONG LIST`?
Personally I think everybody can have its business strategy but what
REALLY sets me up is that this mail seems to mean that Command Prompt
is the only support company around which is actually WRONG!
No... not at all, nor was that my intent. There are many good PostgreSQL
support companies. PgSQL, Inc. and Aglios come to mind. I was
just trying to provide an example of what that particular company might
be looking for. I wasn't even saying that we were the right company
for them. I was just saying what I thought they were looking for.
In my opinion everybody who has enough skills can do this kind of job.
Being a support company has nothing to do with making a good Open
Source product a closed source product.
In my opinion giving something a new name and hiding away some code
does not mean commercial backing and it does not mean being the god of
all support companies.
What in the world brought this on? I wasn't suggesting any of this. I
was just trying to help clarify the guys statement. He couldn't have
been talking about Red Hat for all I care.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Regards,
Hans
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.orgAll,
I sincerely apologize for possibly starting a flame war, I wasn't aware
this might be a hot-button issue. Hopefully some good will come of it
none-the-less, like others who come after me might see the reasons our
db application developers want this type of "go to" support.
I would also sincerely like to thank all who've responded as this has
given a lot of insight, I think, for all of us involved thus far. It's
good to have different perspectives, even if we don't all agree all the
time. Thanks again.
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded. There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not been to startled by this
outburst :-)
Robert Treat
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 17:17, Austin Gonyou wrote:
All,
I sincerely apologize for possibly starting a flame war, I wasn't aware
this might be a hot-button issue. Hopefully some good will come of it
none-the-less, like others who come after me might see the reasons our
db application developers want this type of "go to" support.I would also sincerely like to thank all who've responded as this has
given a lot of insight, I think, for all of us involved thus far. It's
good to have different perspectives, even if we don't all agree all the
time. Thanks again.--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 17:02, Robert Treat wrote:
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded.
Well, I hear that. I think this little exercise though, is good for the
community as a whole. It's a concern I think lots of business will have,
especially as more move *away* from oracle. We don't like paying them 2M
for just licensing, and then another 200+K for "support". that's for
approximately a 1 year contract. The thing you do get from "them"
though, is a CD and a support matrix. I think most support organizations
will get to that point, even for OSS, cause it makes troubleshooting and
support *mostly* easier. But NO, I don't want to see it closed.
There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not been to startled by this
outburst :-)
Thanks much, and certainly not startled. I just don't like inciting a
riot, if I wasn't trying to. ;) Thanks again all.
Robert Treat
--
Austin Gonyou <austin@coremetrics.com>
Coremetrics, Inc.
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Hello,
I think what the person is looking for is:
COMPANY PostgreSQL for Red Hat Enterprise 3.0.
They probably have some commercial mandate that says that they have
to have a commercial company backing the product itself. This doesn't
work for most PostgreSQL companies because they back the "Open Source"
version of PostgreSQL.Where someone like Command Prompt, although we happily support the
Open Source version, we also sell Command Prompt PostgreSQL.
That was sort of my point. I currently have a 7.3 installation for which I have
my own patches applied, for tsearch2, and for which I run my own CVS of the
cpntrob module. It seems this module isn't maintained in the community, what
with it being a 7.4 thing really. My company is the sys. admin., DBA and DB
developer for the project, except for the production server sys. admin.. These
mods weren't applied because the client was asking for them but because I knew
the faults existed, even though the project wasn't kicking them.
Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with
Logictree Systems TSearch2? And if I'd made no modifications to the code? I
suppose I could have insisted that a separate contract be taken for the supply
and support on top of the app. development contract. In fact, having written
that I'm starting to think that should be the case.
It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?
--
Nigel Andrews
On 19 Nov 2003, Robert Treat wrote:
I don't think *we* thought it was a hot button issue.. at least I
certainly didn't when I initially responded. There is no need for you to
apologize, in fact, I'll apologize for the list, we sometimes get a
little heated on -hackers. Hopefully you've not been to startled by this
outburst :-)
Some people have obviously lead a sheltered 'net existence :)
--
Nigel Andrews
Does that mean I have supplied Logictree Systems PostgreSQL? PostgreSQL with
Logictree Systems TSearch2?
Actually to some degree, yes. Of course a lot would depend on the type
of contract you have with them you may be "responsible" for that code.
However, I would love to see those patches.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
And if I'd made no modifications to the code? I
suppose I could have insisted that a separate contract be taken for the supply
and support on top of the app. development contract. In fact, having written
that I'm starting to think that should be the case.It is purely a business thing, liability and the like.
Sincerely,
Joshua Drake
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Michael Meskes wrote:
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:19:35PM -0600, Austin Gonyou wrote:
I've been looking all over but I can't seem to see a company that is
providing *up-to-date* postgresql support and provides their own
supported binaries. Am I barking up the wrong tree entirely here?Why do you insist on "their own binaries"? I think there are several
companies out there providing support for a given version of PostgreSQL
and doubt they all ask for their own binaries. At least we do not.We don't either, nor do we worry about specific platforms ...
And I know CommandPrompt doesn't care either.
I don't even know what it means. If I were to build the 7.4 source, install it
somewhere, tarball it up would that then count as providing our own supported
binaries (assuming the support service is also offered of course)? Surely it's
fairly common for someone to sell support and be happy to include the service
of supplying the binaries so if requested, what's so special about it?--
Nigel Andrews
--
Co-Founder
Command Prompt, Inc.
The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead
However, I would love to see those patches.
Sure. Should be in the archive. The version for 7.4 was submitted and applied
pre-release but if you really do want the 7.3 runnable stuff I can send it. It
was only the unchecked returns from malloc and family patch in the snowball
directory. I think the original fault reporter still had problems afterwards
though, shame he didn't seem interested in persuing it or providing decent help
to find the cause.
Nigel
