| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Erik Jones <erik(at)myemma(dot)com>, CAJ CAJ <pguser(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases |
| Date: | 2007-03-21 13:29:04 |
| Message-ID: | 27051.1174483744@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Naz Gassiep <naz(at)mira(dot)net> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Example discussion with customer:
> ...
> Finally, in the absence of security concerns or performance issues (and
> I mean the "we can't afford to buy better hardware" type edge of the
> envelope type issues) there is zero *need* to upgrade.
This line of argument ignores the fact that newer versions often contain
fixes for data-loss-grade bugs. Now admittedly that is usually an
argument for updating to x.y.z+1 rather than x.y+1, but I think it
destroys any reasoning on the basis of "if it ain't broke".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Pundt | 2007-03-21 13:47:53 | Re: to_tsvector in 8.2.3 |
| Previous Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2007-03-21 13:25:30 | Re: to_tsvector in 8.2.3 |