Re: Concerns about this release

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)doot(dot)org>
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Concerns about this release
Date: 2001-12-19 23:52:27
Message-ID: 4713.1008805947@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)doot(dot)org> writes:
> So if anyone doesn't mind to take a minute, could I get opinions? Is it too
> paranoid to not use the 7.2 release in production?

Don is working from the "don't be a pioneer" theory, which is hard to
dispute in the abstract. In the concrete, though, I see little reason
to think that 7.2 will be less reliable than 7.1.*, even before we fix
the inevitable early-return bugs and issue a 7.2.1. We have not made
any huge changes like WAL in this cycle.

As an idle exercise, I just went through the CVS log entries since
7.2beta2 (Nov 6, about six weeks ago). I counted 68 log entries that
I could classify as bug fixes; of these, 47 were for bugs that exist in
7.1, the other 21 for new bugs introduced in 7.2 code. I'd call about
4 of the old bugs and 6 of the new ones significant issues (eg, a core
dump is significant, fixing to_char's handling of roman numeral dates
is not). 4 out of the 6 significant new-bug fixes were in the first two
weeks of the six-week period.

You can read those numbers however you want, but to me they look like
7.2.0 will be better than 7.1.anything.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashley Cambrell 2001-12-20 00:51:03 Re: 7.2 is slow? [compile problem]
Previous Message Doug McNaught 2001-12-19 23:44:02 Re: Concerns about this release