Обсуждение: RHEL
Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running fine. Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to receive updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres running on RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3?
Thanks,
Darryl
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 14:56, Darryl W. DeLao Jr wrote: > Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running fine. > Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to receive > updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres running on > RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3? Since RedHat repackage and sell PG along with some visual tools, and they employ one of the core developers, I would be very surprised if there were issues. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
Darryl W. DeLao Jr wrote: > --> > > Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running > fine. Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to > receive updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres > running on RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3? > > > Hello, It will work fine. However, if you do not wish to ride the license bandwagon of RedHat there are a couple of things to remember: 1. All updates for RHEL are made avaialable for free as src rpm's. If you understand rpm-build (or can) it is very easy to keep your box updated. 2. Fedora will maintain updates as well... and the above applies to Fedora as well. It really just depends on your needs. Sincerely, Joshua Drake > Thanks, > > Darryl > > > -- 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.org
I have not been able to find a way to get RHEL without paying for it. RHN doesn't have the iso's for public download. Do you know of a way to get the iso's? Thanks, Darryl -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D. Drake Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 10:36 AM To: ddelao@oucpm.org Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] RHEL Darryl W. DeLao Jr wrote: > --> > > Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running > fine. Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to > receive updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres > running on RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3? > > > Hello, It will work fine. However, if you do not wish to ride the license bandwagon of RedHat there are a couple of things to remember: 1. All updates for RHEL are made avaialable for free as src rpm's. If you understand rpm-build (or can) it is very easy to keep your box updated. 2. Fedora will maintain updates as well... and the above applies to Fedora as well. It really just depends on your needs. Sincerely, Joshua Drake > Thanks, > > Darryl > > > -- 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.org ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:56:29AM -0600, Darryl W. DeLao Jr wrote:
> Im currently on red hat 7.3 running postgres. Everything is running fine.
> Obviously, Im going to have to upgrade to RHEL 3 in order to receive
> updates, etc. Does anyone know of any problems with postgres running on
> RHEL 2.1 or RHEL 3?
I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can
tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES (I'm not sure
if it is in Advanced Server). They have the clients and dev libs,
but I don't see any hint of a server.
(If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected)
On that note, does anyone have suggestions for which version of
the server I should run? I see that there are seperate binary RPMS
for different Linux versions, but nothing for version 3 -- should I
spend some time doing a full install, building, and contributing
one, or is this not necessary?
--
Adam Haberlach | "We spent the 90's all trying to figure out
adam@mediariffic.com | how to get email and the 00's trying to
http://mediariffic.com | figure out how to not get email."
| -- Joe Gross
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Adam Haberlach wrote:
> On that note, does anyone have suggestions for which version of the
> server I should run? I see that there are seperate binary RPMS for
> different Linux versions, but nothing for version 3 -- should I spend some
> time doing a full install, building, and contributing one, or is this not
> necessary?
Adam,
While I still have a couple of Red Hat 7.3 boxes, I'm migrating to
Slackware. I have found that I have much better results by building
PostgreSQL from source than installing from rpms. It doesn't take much time
and it has always worked for me, faster and with less hassle than trying to
upgrade via the packages.
That said, I also use checkinstall (rather than 'make install') and build
the package (your choice of Slackware, Red Hat or Debian) from the source
tarball. Consider trying that.
Rich
Dr. Richard B. Shepard, President
Applied Ecosystem Services, Inc. (TM)
2404 SW 22nd Street | Troutdale, OR 97060-1247 | U.S.A.
+ 1 503-667-4517 (voice) | + 1 503-667-8863 (fax) | rshepard@appl-ecosys.com
http://www.appl-ecosys.com/
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:03:44PM -0800, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Adam Haberlach wrote:
>
> > On that note, does anyone have suggestions for which version of the
> > server I should run? I see that there are seperate binary RPMS for
> > different Linux versions, but nothing for version 3 -- should I spend some
> > time doing a full install, building, and contributing one, or is this not
> > necessary?
>
> Adam,
>
> While I still have a couple of Red Hat 7.3 boxes, I'm migrating to
> Slackware. I have found that I have much better results by building
> PostgreSQL from source than installing from rpms. It doesn't take much time
> and it has always worked for me, faster and with less hassle than trying to
> upgrade via the packages.
Well, we've got 50 or so customer boxes that we need to upgrade, so we
need the package management. I used to build my own from source, too,
and still do on my Solaris box, but I like being able to add and remove
things reliable. But to each their own.
--
Adam Haberlach | "We spent the 90's all trying to figure out
adam@mediariffic.com | how to get email and the 00's trying to
http://mediariffic.com | figure out how to not get email."
| -- Joe Gross
> Well, we've got 50 or so customer boxes that we need to upgrade, so we >need the package management. I used to build my own from source, too, >and still do on my Solaris box, but I like being able to add and remove >things reliable. But to each their own. > > > apt and fedora. ' -- 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.org
Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com> writes:
> I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can
> tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES
Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this.
(Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's
internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres.
I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may
be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.)
regards, tom lane
Thanx for the update. I almost bought RHEL WS on RH's advice, claiming that bind, dhcp and wine were the only packages I needed to build myself. I downloaded and installed fedora on yesterday, and it has PG 7.3.4 server, and everything else I need except wine. I will investigate what will be required for me to provide wine for fedora. I need it for my workstations at home and at work, so I can run FileMaker Pro. I have heard a lot of good things about gentoo, but have not checked it out yet. At work we have moved all our servers to FreeBSD, I am testing FreeBSD 4.9 now, and it has 7.3.4 in the ports now as well. PgAdmin III is now in the ports tree on FreeBSD as well, I have just built and installed it. Good luck with RH Tom Lane wrote: >Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com> writes: > > >> I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can >>tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES >> >> > >Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this. > >(Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's >internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres. >I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may >be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.) > > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > >
On 12/11/2003 18:13 Guy Fraser wrote: > Thanx for the update. > > I almost bought RHEL WS on RH's advice, claiming that bind, dhcp and > wine were > the only packages I needed to build myself. > > I downloaded and installed fedora on yesterday, and it has PG 7.3.4 > server, and everything > else I need except wine. I will investigate what will be required for me > to provide wine for > fedora. I need it for my workstations at home and at work, so I can run > FileMaker Pro. According to posts on the Fedora mailing list, the RH9 wine rpm from Sourceforge works ok on fedora. HTH -- Paul Thomas +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 11:57 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com> writes: > > I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can > > tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES > Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this. > (Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's > internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres. > I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may > be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.) The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does RHEL3 not include this package? -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. Craig On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Tuesday 11 November 2003 11:57 pm, Tom Lane wrote: > > Adam Haberlach <adam@newsnipple.com> writes: > > > I was, a few minutes ago, stunned to discover that as far as I can > > > tell, the postgres server is not part of Red Hat Server ES > > > Feel free to let Red Hat know that you're unhappy about this. > > > (Not totally unbiased here ... I'm getting *very* tired about RH's > > internal indecision about their extent of commitment to Postgres. > > I think frequent whacks-upside-the-head from paying customers may > > be the only way to get upper management to sit up and take notice.) > > The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does > RHEL3 not include this package? >
On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote: > So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to > be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what > happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java, open-sourced) and some support for your money. http://sources.redhat.com/rhdb/ -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
On Wednesday 12 November 2003 11:52 pm, Craig O'Shannessy wrote: > So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to > be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what > happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. Tom Lane is in a better position to answer that, but I understand that things have realigned somewhat. The package is known as 'rh-postgresql' and has some 'enhancements' of some sort. The graphical tools are nice, and are open source. Tom Lane was indeed hired by Red Hat, and he is a core developer. The tenor of his last message would seem to imply some friction there; I hope I'm just misunderstanding. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote: > On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote: > > So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going to > > be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain what > > happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. > > It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java, > open-sourced) and some support for your money. That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow, that's impressive. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "Por suerte hoy explotó el califont porque si no me habría muerto de aburrido" (Papelucho)
On Thursday 13 November 2003 11:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote: > > On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote: > > > So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going > > > to be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain > > > what happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. > > > > It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java, > > open-sourced) and some support for your money. > > That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow, > that's impressive. We are somewhat spoilt in the PG community as regards prompt attention from the core developers (and Tom in particular). On the other hand, if I was paying for support, I can't think of anyone else I'd rather get a response from. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> writes:
> The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does
> RHEL3 not include this package?
I have not actually installed RHEL3 to check, but my understanding is
that it's not there. There was a last-minute decision taken to pull
PG and MySQL from the base distribution with the intent of packaging
them as a separate "layered product". Latest word is that that plan
is off again, leaving us (RH) with no open-source database support
and lots of egg on our faces. So yeah, I'm a bit annoyed. I suppose
some RHEL3 packages will emerge from the mess eventually, but I don't
know exactly how or when.
I think it's important for the powers-that-be to realize that they are
not messing around with unimportant software that no one uses. Thus
my encouragement to people to send in complaints.
regards, tom lane
Richard Huxton wrote: > On Thursday 13 November 2003 11:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote: > > > On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote: > > > > So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going > > > > to be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain > > > > what happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. > > > > > > It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java, > > > open-sourced) and some support for your money. > > > > That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow, > > that's impressive. > > We are somewhat spoilt in the PG community as regards prompt attention from > the core developers (and Tom in particular). > > On the other hand, if I was paying for support, I can't think of anyone else > I'd rather get a response from. Commercial support is good when you have a tough problem that requires lots of digging, and the support guys will do the digging for you. -- 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
Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something? (We are about to install 3.0, so I would really like to know..) BTJ On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 16:08, Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu> writes: > > The RHEL3 beta (taroon) had rh-postgresql-server built and included. Does > > RHEL3 not include this package? > > I have not actually installed RHEL3 to check, but my understanding is > that it's not there. There was a last-minute decision taken to pull > PG and MySQL from the base distribution with the intent of packaging > them as a separate "layered product". Latest word is that that plan > is off again, leaving us (RH) with no open-source database support > and lots of egg on our faces. So yeah, I'm a bit annoyed. I suppose > some RHEL3 packages will emerge from the mess eventually, but I don't > know exactly how or when. > > I think it's important for the powers-that-be to realize that they are > not messing around with unimportant software that no one uses. Thus > my encouragement to people to send in complaints. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
Can I get a support contract directly from the developers instead of going through redhat? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> To: "Richard Huxton" <dev@archonet.com> Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>; "Craig O'Shannessy" <craig@ucw.com.au>; "Lamar Owen" <lowen@pari.edu>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] RHEL > Richard Huxton wrote: > > On Thursday 13 November 2003 11:16, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:34:27AM +0000, Richard Huxton wrote: > > > > On Thursday 13 November 2003 04:52, Craig O'Shannessy wrote: > > > > > So, what ever happened to the "RedHat database"? I though RH was going > > > > > to be hiring core PostgreSQL developers? Anyone got a URL to explain > > > > > what happened to this venture? Sorry if I'm getting a little OT here. > > > > > > > > It exists, and they did hire. You get PG, some graphical utilities (java, > > > > open-sourced) and some support for your money. > > > > > > That means I could get Tom Lane to answer some question about Pg? Wow, > > > that's impressive. > > > > We are somewhat spoilt in the PG community as regards prompt attention from > > the core developers (and Tom in particular). > > > > On the other hand, if I was paying for support, I can't think of anyone else > > I'd rather get a response from. > > Commercial support is good when you have a tough problem that requires > lots of digging, and the support guys will do the digging for you. > > -- > 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 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend >
Does anyone have any experience with postgres on fedora?
Rick Gigger wrote: > Can I get a support contract directly from the developers instead of going > through redhat? I don't think you can contract a Red Hat-employed developer directly, but there are other PostgreSQL support companies around. -- 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
Bjørn T Johansen writes: > Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and > compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something? Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Rick Gigger writes: > Can I get a support contract directly from the developers instead of going > through redhat? You are welcome to seek support on the user mailing lists of PostgreSQL. If you need something more binding, there are many companies that offer commercial support, independent of the operating system you use. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Well, I have never seen any advantages in a package system... :) As a developer, I like having full control of what I compile.... BTJ On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 20:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Bjørn T Johansen writes: > > > Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and > > compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something? > > Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you.
Bjørn T Johansen wrote: >Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and >compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something? >(We are about to install 3.0, so I would really like to know..) > > > In fact there are some reasons *to* do this : - compiler optimizations specific for your platform - add or remove configurable options from the build Ps : and in principle, the whole *point* of having an open source product is the freedom to get the source and build it yourself :-) Just 2c Mark
but with source packages that's exactly what you get. Download source RPM, configure things like CFLAGS, build your package, and you've got exactly what you want in a very portable format. I'm a build it from tar.bz kinda guy too, but sometimes you need packages to make TPTB happy, or to keep from having to compile the database on 20 different machines. On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Bjørn T Johansen wrote: > Well, I have never seen any advantages in a package system... :) > As a developer, I like having full control of what I compile.... > > > BTJ > > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 20:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bjørn T Johansen writes: > > > > > Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source and > > > compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something? > > > > Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you.
On Friday 14 November 2003 01:19, Bjørn T Johansen wrote: > Well, I have never seen any advantages in a package system... :) > As a developer, I like having full control of what I compile.... > > > BTJ > > On Thu, 2003-11-13 at 20:45, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Bjørn T Johansen writes: > > > Just a question... Are there any reasons not to just take the source > > > and compile it under RHEL 3.0? Or am I missing something? > > > > Yes, all the advantages that a package system gives you. Use checkinstall. Best of both worlds. It is still short of a well built package but in general far better than just a source compile.. Shridhar
On 13/11/2003 19:32 Rick Gigger wrote: > Does anyone have any experience with postgres on fedora? Fedora ships with 7.3.4. I've got it running nicely on a laptop. HTH -- Paul Thomas +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+