Re: Operator for int8 array

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "S(dot)Thanga Prakash" <thanga(at)midascomm(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, "K(dot)Deepa" <kdeepa(at)midascomm(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Operator for int8 array
Date: 2006-02-27 14:46:25
Message-ID: 19090.1141051585@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"S.Thanga Prakash" <thanga(at)midascomm(dot)com> writes:
> We are already in the process of migrating toward 8.1 .
> For existing support, we like to support with 7.1.3 .

No, just stop right there; your reasonable-sounding premise is utterly
not reasonable. You should be making every possible effort to get any
existing 7.1 databases decommissioned. NOW. Not tomorrow, not next
week. If you have data that is critical enough to worry about having a
transition process, get it out of there. Expending further effort to
"support" continued use of an inherently unreliable database is a
disservice to your customers. Sooner or later it *will* eat their data.
(Not "might"; WILL. Are you familiar with the XID wraparound problem?)

You've been warned.

regards, tom lane

PS: if you have application compatibility issues that prevent an
immediate migration to 8.*, consider using PG 7.2.8 as a stopgap
solution. 7.2.* is not supported anymore either, but at least it
avoids the XID wraparound gotcha; and the later 7.2.* releases fix
a lot of other critical bugs.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2006-02-27 15:26:02 Re: Wish: remove ancient constructs from Postgres
Previous Message Roman Neuhauser 2006-02-27 14:00:59 Re: majordomo unmaintained, postmaster emails ignored?