Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

From: teg(at)redhat(dot)com (Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?=)
To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Date: 2000-10-27 19:42:15
Message-ID: xuypukmt6js.fsf@hoser.devel.redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-ports

Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:

> My gut feel is that RedHat may be better off shipping 7.0.x if the
> library version numbers are a contributory problem.

We could provide compat-packages with just neeeded libraries.

> The data upgrade problem is a bigger problem. To which RedHat might
> just want to stay at 7.0.x until either a tool is written to
> painlessly migrate or until the next major RedHat is released.

We upgrade everything from 3.0.3 (we no longer support upgrades from
2.0 as we couldn't find a specific way to identify such a system and
we didn't want accidentaly upgrade other distributions), so there is
pain anyway.

> Of course, that doesn't affect what I do as far as building 7.1 RPM's
> for distribution from the PostgreSQL site (or by anyone who so desires
> to distribute them). I have no choice for my own self but to stay on
> the curve. I need TOAST and OUTER JOINS too much.

Others very likely have the same need. I'll be looking into issues
with these later.

> So, what I feel may be the best compromise is for RedHat (and myself) to
> continue building 7.0.x RPM's with bugfixes, etc, while I build 7.1 ad
> subsequent RPMset's for those who know what they're doing and not
> blindly upgrading their systems.

> Trond, do you have any comments on that? Or is the likely migration to
> kernel 2.4 in the next RedHat going to make a compatability compromise
> here moot?

No, the 2.4 kernel should go right in - I've been using it extensively
on my system until recently (the most recent pretest has problems with
flock for sendmail).

Anyway, I've had a look at psql in objdump:

Dynamic Section:
NEEDED libpq.so.2.1
NEEDED libcrypt.so.1
NEEDED libnsl.so.1
NEEDED libdl.so.2
NEEDED libm.so.6
NEEDED libutil.so.1
NEEDED libreadline.so.4.1
NEEDED libtermcap.so.2
NEEDED libncurses.so.5
NEEDED libc.so.6

[...]

It links against nice, round versions of most libraries but wants
specific versions of readline ad libpq.

--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2000-10-27 19:51:25 Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2000-10-27 19:30:34 Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alex Pilosov 2000-10-27 19:43:42 Re: Summary: what to do about INET/CIDR
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2000-10-27 19:30:34 Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)

Browse pgsql-ports by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2000-10-27 19:51:25 Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2000-10-27 19:30:34 Re: Re: [GENERAL] 7.0 vs. 7.1 (was: latest version?)