This is a discussion on Re: Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL within the Pgsql General forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> Dave Page wrote: > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> > > ...
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| Dave Page wrote: > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> > > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00 > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches > > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda > > > like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode > > > though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself. > > > > But would that give people who have previously used the full installer > > an upgrade path (that doesn't break everything around it)? > > Yes - they'd just unpack the archive over their install directory. Might screw up the permissions though, and wouldn't include the docs :-( We'd certainly need to try it out thoroughly first... I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle for our most popular platform. As it is a packaging issue, if some people don't want to continue providing updates, I can start asking in the community for someone else to do it. If the port is broken, and people must upgrade, I can see the reason for not releasing updates, but if it is a question of time committment, I oppose such cutbacks. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match |
| |||
| Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle > for our most popular platform. Are you volunteering to back-port and test all the Windows fixes that never went into 8.0? I think we should either do that, or admit that we're not supporting 8.0.x on Windows. I favor the latter; I'm certainly unwilling to spend any of my own time on the former. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend |
| ||||
| Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle > > for our most popular platform. > > Are you volunteering to back-port and test all the Windows fixes that > never went into 8.0? > > I think we should either do that, or admit that we're not supporting > 8.0.x on Windows. I favor the latter; I'm certainly unwilling to spend > any of my own time on the former. I am fine with abandoning Win32 8.0.X because we don't want to backport (like we did with 7.2.X), but not because we don't want to build the install binaries. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |