I just posted a source rpm for beta2, along with binary rpms for 
fc1-i386, fc2-i386, and fc2-x86_64.

http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta/

BTW, I've been naming these similar to the "official" rpms (e.g. 
Postgresql-8.0.0*PGDG.*.rpm) mainly just to be consistent. No one has 
complained about it, so I take it that's OK?

Joe

Wed, 01 Sep 2004 21:20:52 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
beta2 rpms
On Thursday 02 September 2004 00:20, Joe Conway wrote:
> I just posted a source rpm for beta2, along with binary rpms for
> fc1-i386, fc2-i386, and fc2-x86_64.

> http://www.joeconway.com/postgresql-8.0.0beta/

> BTW, I've been naming these similar to the "official" rpms (e.g.
> Postgresql-8.0.0*PGDG.*.rpm) mainly just to be consistent. No one has
> complained about it, so I take it that's OK?

Sorry, I've been kindof swamped around here.  Please name them using, say, a 
'JC' instead of 'PGDG' if you don't mind.  I appreciate you providing these; 
however, I do intend to be releasing RPM's soon, but probably not beta2 ones.  
I have some features I want to work on first, and just simply have not yet 
had the time to do it.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:15:21 -0400
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Re: beta2 rpms
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Lamar Owen wrote:

> Sorry, I've been kindof swamped around here.  Please name them using, say, a 
> 'JC' instead of 'PGDG' if you don't mind.  I appreciate you providing these; 
> however, I do intend to be releasing RPM's soon, but probably not beta2 ones.  
> I have some features I want to work on first, and just simply have not yet 
> had the time to do it.

Lamar,

I've been meaning to ask for a long time: Why does /var/log/pgsql get 
installed with the execute bit set? I don't have any other log files with 
the execute bit on, and can't imagine why that would be necessary or 
useful. Am I missing something?

Also, is there a reason that the init script defaults to redirecting 
stdout and stderr to /dev/null instead of to /var/log/pgsql? If the DBA 
doesn't turn on logging in postgresql.conf, then very little output goes 
to /var/log/pgsql, usually of an important nature like "stopped" or 
"started" at a certain date. I normally change that first thing after a 
new install.

Just wondering.

Thanks,
Jon


-- 
Jon Jensen
End Point Corporation
http://www.endpoint.com/
Software development with Interchange, Perl, PostgreSQL, Apache, Linux, ...

Thu, 2 Sep 2004 20:27:00 +0000 (UTC)
Jon Jensen <jon@endpoint.com>
Re: beta2 rpms
On Thursday 02 September 2004 16:27, Jon Jensen wrote:
> I've been meaning to ask for a long time: Why does /var/log/pgsql get
> installed with the execute bit set? I don't have any other log files with
> the execute bit on, and can't imagine why that would be necessary or
> useful. Am I missing something?

Hmmmm.... I've set the wrong permission mask in the %files list, apparently.

> Also, is there a reason that the init script defaults to redirecting
> stdout and stderr to /dev/null instead of to /var/log/pgsql? 

The intent was t use syslog.  The new log rotation scheme will likely be 
tapped this time around, though.

> If the DBA 
> doesn't turn on logging in postgresql.conf, then very little output goes
> to /var/log/pgsql, usually of an important nature like "stopped" or
> "started" at a certain date. I normally change that first thing after a
> new install.

Normally the first thing I do is enable and set up syslog support.  This way I 
can use my established syslog infrastructure, where really important log 
messages not only get logged to disk but get PRINTED.  Logs that print are 
difficult for intruders to mess with, and once one has an established syslog 
server it's trivial to send all logs from all servers to the one central 
logging server.  I have done this a long time.
-- 
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:08:16 -0400
Lamar Owen <lowen@pari.edu>
Re: beta2 rpms
Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 02 September 2004 00:20, Joe Conway wrote:
>>BTW, I've been naming these similar to the "official" rpms (e.g.
>>Postgresql-8.0.0*PGDG.*.rpm) mainly just to be consistent. No one has
>>complained about it, so I take it that's OK?
> 
> Sorry, I've been kindof swamped around here.  Please name them using, say, a 
> 'JC' instead of 'PGDG' if you don't mind.  I appreciate you providing these; 
> however, I do intend to be releasing RPM's soon, but probably not beta2 ones.  
> I have some features I want to work on first, and just simply have not yet 
> had the time to do it.

Do you want me to rename them right away, or rename as of beta3? 
Actually, if you release beta3 rpms I won't bother, so I guess we should 
coordinate.

Thanks,

Joe

Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:40:46 -0700
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: beta2 rpms