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

Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-core(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [CORE] EOL for 7.4?
Date: 2009-12-01 23:55:00
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> The other side of the coin is that people running such old versions are
> in it for stability --- they don't *want* bugs fixed, unless they're
> bugs they've hit themselves.  Major fixes that would possibly
> destabilize the code base would be exactly what's not wanted.  Every
> time I get Red Hat to ship an update version, it's only after fighting
> tooth and nail to do a "rebase" instead of cherry-picking just the fixes
> for bugs that paying customers have specifically complained about.  The
> fact that we're pretty conservative about what we back-patch is the only
> reason I ever win any of those arguments.

I don't find anything wrong with this picture. The other upside of our 
being conservative about what we back-patch is that users have much more 
confidence in the community edition. If we were less so, we'd find more 
users on older, vendor-supported versions, which would be more out of 
date than they are now, for the reasons Tom outlines above.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-12-02 00:03:26
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks
Previous:From: decibelDate: 2009-12-01 23:45:45
Subject: Re: Block-level CRC checks

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group