Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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".

I think that we call pretty much assume that this whole thread is based
around the theory that we are all running the latest stable dot release
of whatever version. Which in fact does, mean "if it ain't broke, don't
fix it."

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> regards, tom lane
>

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/