On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Scott Mead <scottm@openscg.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 3:04 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 25 Apr 2016, at 20:05, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > -WWW,
>> >
>> > In reviewing:
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAKq0gv+Gc0i8j=ktQSkMkLJmmTqUHAm=Eza7zLv+MdXCB6H+Bw@mail.gmail.com
>> >
>> > It becomes clear that they are following the Open Source way in a more
>> > transparent fashion that the other universal packages available.
>>
>> In what way exactly? I can't even find the source code on the website. The
>> existing installers are on git.postgresql.org.
>
>
> Looks like an oversight, we're opening up the repo now.
>>
>>
>> The other thing to be very careful of is confusing users. Are these
>> distributions interchangeable? What happens if a user tries to upgrade one
>> with the other?
>
>
> That's the beauty of our update manager, It's consistent across platforms
> and makes updates a snap.
As does ours, as you know.
That being said, our testing includes using each
> set of binaries against data directories created with different installers.
Is that safe, given the compiler differences?
BTW - I was somewhat concerned to see outbound HTTP connections being
made during installation without my consent or knowledge (bar the fact
I was intentionally monitoring). What gives?
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company