Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> I still insist it's unrealistic to consider any of these, even 8.2, as
> anything but "best effort" at this point.

Agreed, and we should not pretend otherwise.

> Declaring 8.0 "end of life"
> today is implying that we haven't already been skipping fixing bugs in
> it that would have required major changes. People running 8.1 and 8.2
> should be given the truth that only really important bugs are going to
> cause any significant development for these versions.

The other side of the coin is that people running such old versions are
in it for stability --- they don't *want* bugs fixed, unless they're
bugs they've hit themselves.  Major fixes that would possibly
destabilize the code base would be exactly what's not wanted.  Every
time I get Red Hat to ship an update version, it's only after fighting
tooth and nail to do a "rebase" instead of cherry-picking just the fixes
for bugs that paying customers have specifically complained about.  The
fact that we're pretty conservative about what we back-patch is the only
reason I ever win any of those arguments.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? at 2009-12-01 23:19:19 from Greg Stark

Responses

• Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4? at 2009-12-01 23:55:00 from Andrew Dunstan

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Greg Stark	Date: 2009-12-01 23:44:02
	Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:	From: Greg Smith	Date: 2009-12-01 23:36:13
	Subject: Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4?