Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: State of support for back PG branches

From: Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches
Date: 2005-09-26 22:13:50
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.63.0509270103300.16895@mail.kivi.com.tr (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

<snipped>
> This brings up the question of whether we should officially abandon
> support for 7.2 and/or later branches.  I don't think anyone is planning
> on supporting old branches forever, but when do we stop?
>
> I have a corporate need to keep supporting 7.3, at least to the extent
> of critical bug fixes, because Red Hat is still on the hook to support
> that version in RHEL3 for awhile longer.  I have no such interest in
> 7.2 (which is one reason I'm not excited about doing the extra work to
> back-patch the VACUUM/ctid fix).  I can definitely see that the
> community might not want to expend more effort on 7.3, though.  I have
> no idea what the needs of other distributions might be.

Doesn't Red Hat support RHEL 2.1, and so that PostgreSQL 7.1?

Anyway, IMHO PGDG should stop supporting 7.2 when 8.1 will be officially 
released. But at this point, (recalling the vacuum bug) it may "now" be 
time to abandon supporting 7.2.

Also, as the RPM maintainer of PGDG, it is hard to support 7.2 for us, 
too. Compiling 7.2 on newer platforms becomes a pain...

There are some 7.3 users around (I remember some on Slony lists, etc), 
therefore we should keep supporting it. But maybe we can announce that 
"7.3 will become unsupported after XXX time" so that people will know 
before we abandon the support. The best time for not supporting 7.3 might 
be when 8.2 will be released. However, I believe that 7.4 should live 
longer, since that's the last of the 7.X branch.

Regards,
--
Devrim GUNDUZ
Kivi Bili┼čim Teknolojileri - http://www.kivi.com.tr
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
                       http://www.gunduz.org
>From pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org  Mon Sep 26 19:27:51 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03F2D97BB
	for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:27:49 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
 by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 20740-02
 for <pgsql-hackers-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
 Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:27:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from flake.decibel.org (flake.decibel.org [67.100.216.10])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC03D97E2
	for <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 19:27:46 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by flake.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id 9199F1524F; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 22:27:48 +0000 (GMT)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:27:48 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Database file compatability
Message-ID: <20050926222748(dot)GV30974(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.11-RELEASE-p10 i386
X-Distributed: Join the Effort!  http://www.distributed.net
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.005 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005]
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200509/1177
X-Sequence-Number: 73574

If a database is created with a 64 bit version of initdb, would a 32bit
backend be able to talk to it? Likewise, would a backend compiled by a
different compiler be able to?

If there was some kind of incompatability, would the backend just refuse
to start, or would it start and start silently trashing data?
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-09-26 22:34:19
Subject: Re: State of support for back PG branches
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-09-26 21:57:08
Subject: State of support for back PG branches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group