| From: | Joel <rees(at)ddcom(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: compatibilityissues from 7.1 to 7.4 |
| Date: | 2004-10-28 08:00:07 |
| Message-ID: | 20041028165403.103E.REES@ddcom.co.jp |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 01:01:20 -0400
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote
> Joel <rees(at)ddcom(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Any thoughts on the urgency of the move?
>
> How large is your pg_log file? 7.1 was the last release that had the
> transaction ID wraparound limitation (after 4G transactions your
> database fails...). If pg_log is approaching a gig, you had better
> do something PDQ.
Great. Very low use (to this point) BBS and similar things, so it looks
like we'll miss this issue.
> More generally: essentially all of the data-loss bugs we've fixed lately
> existed also in 7.1. The core committee made a policy decision some
> time ago that we wouldn't bother back-patching further than 7.2, however.
> The only reason 7.2 is still getting some patching attention is that it
> was the last pre-schema release, and so there might be some people out
> there with non-schema-aware applications who couldn't conveniently move
> up to 7.3 or later. But once 8.0 is out we'll probably lose interest in
> supporting 7.2 as well.
Thanks for the answers. I think we have good motivation to proceed.
--
Joel <rees(at)ddcom(dot)co(dot)jp>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2004-10-28 09:58:18 | Re: Reasoning behind process instead of thread based |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-10-28 07:41:38 | Re: Reasoning behind process instead of thread based |