On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 10:19:25AM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> exclaiming how quickly they should upgrade. While I am certain there are even
> older versions of postgres still running in production out there, I'd have to
> say that the core developers for this project do not release software with
> the expectation that you will use if for more than 5 years.
You're equivocating here. The PostgreSQL project is under active
development, and there are supported and unsupported versions.
Moreover, it's not really just an application; it's more like
application infrastructure. The database engine one uses for an
application is more like a shared library, from the application's
point of view, than it is like another application.
Most application software doesn't remain under active development once
delivered. You write it to the point where it works, and then when it
is doing the job expected, it starts to be used. There is no
maintenance, and there are no opportunities for new nifty features.
This is _especially_ true of bespoke software, which is why most of it
is so awful when you look at it: there's no incentive at all to make
the code maintainable, because it will never get any maintenance
Think of the difference between making durable goods like washing
machines or automobiles, as compared to more or less disposable goods
like kitchen gadgets or, these days, toasters and blenders. The
former either come with or have available for them spare parts,
schematic documents, and long warranties. The latter come with, if
you're lucky, a warranty of a year and warnings that there are no
servicable parts inside. Yet people expect to use their toasters and
kitchen gadgets for years, and are annoyed if they fail after just a
+1 503 667 4564 x104
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-30 15:33:35|
|Subject: Re: Deadlock situation? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-04-30 15:12:47|
|Subject: Re: inheritance. more. |