On 2018-08-28 18:32, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:19:28PM -0400, Jonathan Katz wrote:
>> On Aug 28, 2018, at 1:06 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
>> wrote:
>> Whether it's the EDB one or another one is a separate discussion,
>> but we've
>> been recommending the EDB one for a long time and none of our
>> users have
>> (AFAIK) complained about it (except when download servers have
>> been down.
>> Personally I'd really like to see the binaries hosted on the
>> postgresql.org
>> servers instead, but again that's an at least partially separate
>> discussion).
>>
>> Partially separate discussion, but probably a separate discussion.
>> However,
>> since you opened it up, I would say +1 for it, but I understand there
>> are
>> additional considerations the infrastructure needs to make around
>> hosting
>> that, in addition to “which installer is chosen.”
>
> 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.
Whether it be 100% volunteer based, someone we hire (several people have
pointed out we're not short of funds), or whatever. Just from the
"neutral
third party" (not vendor owned) perspective. ;)
+ Justin