On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 03:22:25PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
> On 8/28/18 3:15 PM, Justin Clift wrote:
> > On 2018-08-28 20:06, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 08:01:12PM +0100, Justin Clift wrote:
> >>> On 2018-08-28 18:32, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> >Well, if we have another installer provider who has similar or better
> >>> >performance for things we care about, e.g. reliable updates, support,
> >>> >_and_ is willing to host the binaries where we want them, we can
> >>> switch
> >>> >to them. While it is kind of disloyal to change preferred
> >>> providers, we
> >>> >also didn't agree to have them be preferred forever, especially if
> >>> >someone better shows up. Of course, switching might be disruptive for
> >>> >our installers uses, so we have to consider that too.
> >>>
> >>> An alternative approach would be for us ("the project") to build
> >>> official
> >>> installers ourselves, with those being the recommended ones.
> >>
> >> Uh, we used to do that but found the user support overhead too much.
> >
> > No worries, was just a thought. :)
>
> Well, a few things has changed since the decision was made, such as
> tools, resources, and in some cases, people, so we do have a good
> opportunity to reevaluate and see what makes sense. The success of the
> yum + apt repositories also provides a template for how to manage &
> support the installers.
>
> I do understand it is a bit more involved (i.e. there are interface
> components with a lot of these) but perhaps we can do what the other
> packages do and install the minimum for supporting a PostgreSQL environment.
Sure, we can certainly reevaluate. The biggest user support load, as I
remember, was Windows users.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +