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

Re: reindexing

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lew <lew(at)lwsc(dot)ehost-services(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reindexing
Date: 2008-02-27 18:03:40
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
Lew <lew(at)lwsc(dot)ehost-services(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> There never was a 7.1.4 release, so I suspect the OP meant 7.4.1
>> .... not that that speaks very much better for his software maintenance
>> habits.  Even with the more charitable interpretation, it's a version
>> that was obsoleted four years ago next week.

> In my experience at various "big-iron" shops (government agencies, large 
> health-care organizations and the like), four years is not a long time for 
> enterprise software - a version often has to be at least four years old before 
> the powers-that-be decide to try it.  One has only to look at how many 
> organizations still use Oracle 8, or Java 1.3, for example, to see how 
> conservative many shops are with respect to upgrades.

This is not equivalent to "still using Oracle 8".  This is "still using
Oracle 8 and we haven't applied any of Oracle's updates for it".  Is it
even possible for a shop to do that?  I can hardly believe that Oracle
would honor a support contract for a version that's missing four years
worth of bug fixes.

As for the "not wanting to adopt too quickly" argument, why'd they adopt
7.4.1 in the first place?  If you're of the view that no software is
acceptably stable till it's been out a couple years, you should be using
something with a minor number rather higher than 1.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Greg SmithDate: 2008-02-27 18:53:04
Subject: Re: reindexing
Previous:From: paul riversDate: 2008-02-27 17:43:56
Subject: Re: reindexing

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group