On tis, 2011-08-30 at 15:31 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> While not wishing to deny that this can be a problem, I think you're
> overstating this aspect:
> > Now if this had been, say, plpython, which is also developed closely
> > together with the backend, but is probably shipped in a separate binary
> > package and has extra dependencies, so it might reasonably not be
> > upgraded at the same time, there would be additional problems. We
> > should figure out a way to advise packagers about putting in tight
> > enough version dependencies when this happens.
> This is not possible at least in the Red Hat world, because all the
> subpackages have exact-version-and-release dependencies tying them
> together. That's distro policy not just my whim, and I'd expect other
> server-grade distros to have similar policies.
Well, the Debian packages don't do this. Obviously, they could, but no
one has ever clarified this.
Exactly which distribution policy is this? I would rather think that
this is something that upstream needs to determine.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tomas Vondra||Date: 2011-09-02 19:00:55|
|Subject: Re: PATCH: regular logging of checkpoint progress|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2011-09-02 18:54:07|
|Subject: Re: sha1, sha2 functions into core?|