| 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: | 4B15ACD4.1000300@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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users on older, vendor-supported versions, which would be more out of
date than they are now, for the reasons Tom outlines above.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-02 00:03:26 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |
| Previous Message | decibel | 2009-12-01 23:45:45 | Re: Block-level CRC checks |