From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Murtari <jmurtari(at)thebook(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch set under development to add usage reporting. |
Date: | 2009-10-31 03:00:27 |
Message-ID: | alpine.GSO.2.01.0910302130020.15666@westnet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009, John Murtari wrote:
> We now have a basic patch set that works and is basically stable (not
> recommended for production servers!). We've dedicated a page at our web
> site and it hopefully has answers to most of your questions, and also
> has the patch set for download. These are for 7.4.19 - the version
> included with RHEL 4.
This is kind of interesting, but targeting 7.4.19 isn't going to get you
very far toward code anyone else will use. That release is 6 years old,
it's filled with unsolvable limitations, it's basically at end of life.
The fact that it's bundled with RHEL4 and there are some legacy installs
still floating around are the only reason it's not completely gone from
everyone's radar.
In short, if you actually care about your data, you should be running a
newer version of the database regardless of what RHEL ships. And you
should be building patches against no earlier than 8.4 if you want
something that has any hope of being accepted into mainstream development.
Eventually the patch will need to apply to the 8.5 work in progress source
code tree before it's even a candidate to merge. You can probably get
away with developing against a more stable version like 8.4.1, if you must
target something people can also deploy, but even that's not ideal and
will eventually turn into a code merge hurdle.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-10-31 04:25:25 | Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2009-10-31 00:02:59 | Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile |