On Mar 15, 2008, at 8:58 AM, Ron Mayer wrote:
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
A silly question in this context: If we know of a company that
does use PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can we take
the liberty to publicise this somewhere anyway?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:26:35 -0500
Erik Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I agree companies are likely to get annoyed - just like fast
food companies do when you say how much trans-fats their products
contain; I'm rather curious what such a
Greg Smith wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
A silly question in this context: If we know of a company that does
use PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can we take the
liberty to publicise this somewhere anyway?
I notice Oracle (and sleepycat before them) had a
Hi,
This has been a very interesting thread indeed.
I think the popularity of any Big Name $oftware with a 'nice' price tag has
also something to do with the fear of taking responsibility for your own
actions and decisions.
With a Big Name you can always blame them if something goes wrong
itself open source, you have to pay to get a license. Pay for GPL software?
You cannot be serious, GPL has no relation with monetary value. The
GPL is a 'Usage License'. If i write GPL software to my clients,
should i give it free of charge ?. That's absurd.
--
Sent via pgsql-general
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:08:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrej Ricnik-Bay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 14/03/2008, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel..
What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
What then? Could it be marketing
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 02:29:07AM +0100, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:08:27 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrej Ricnik-Bay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 14/03/2008, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel..
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:06 PM, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your
love
for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
I wouldn't comment on that, but having read so much about MySQL in Postgres'
On Friday 14. March 2008, Adrian Klaver wrote:
Years ago I played around with MySQL because that
was what everybody was using. The problem was it did not do what I
wanted and Postgres did.
That pretty much sums up my experiences too. Back in 2002 when I started
fooling around with databases,
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:28:37 +0100
Magnus Hagander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still find impressing that Google uses MySQL... I can guess why,
What makes you so sure Google don't use PostgreSQL *as well*?
I'm not sure... in fact I never excluded they could use pg for other
stuff... They may
On Mar 14, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
Still I'd be curious to know if people can scale pg to several
hundreds(?) machines without loosing the features that differentiate
it from other DB...
Jan Weick wrote Slony which was released by Affilias who runs the top-
level
On Mar 14, 2008, at 3:26 AM, jose javier parra sanchez wrote:
itself open source, you have to pay to get a license. Pay for GPL
software?
You cannot be serious, GPL has no relation with monetary value. The
GPL is a 'Usage License'. If i write GPL software to my clients,
should i give it
Gurjeet Singh escribió:
I wouldn't comment on that, but having read so much about MySQL in Postgres'
lists, I sure have a disliking for MySQL, so much so that I haven't bothered
even downloading and installing it even once!!!
I have downloaded the source at different periods of time. The
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gurjeet Singh escribió:
I wouldn't comment on that, but having read so much about MySQL in Postgres'
lists, I sure have a disliking for MySQL, so much so that I haven't bothered
even downloading and installing it even once!!!
I have downloaded the
Tom Lane wrote:
In connection with my Red Hat duties I've had to look at it occasionally
:-(. They definitely have a lower standard for commenting than we do.
I sure hope that there is unpublished documentation somewhere ...
And cut into the very lucrative figuring out the MySQL source code
Erik Jones wrote:
They've gotten around that by making MySQL dual-licensed. If you're
going to be using MySQL in a commercial application then you can not
use the GPL'd version, you have to use their paid, commercial license.
My understanding is that's not quite true. The client libraries
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 03:17:27PM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:06 PM, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its
your love for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior
than mysql.
I wouldn't
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
You can use CLUSTER reliably only from 7.2 upwards. (Or was it 7.3? I
forget). In earlier versions it would lose information about other
indexes (i.e. those not being clustered on), foreign keys, inheritance,
etc; in other words pretty much a disaster except for the
Steve Crawford escribió:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Also, it is MVCC-safe only from 8.3 upwards; on older versions
it (incorrectly) deletes dead tuples that are still visible to old
transactions.
More interesting. I may have a broken mental-model. I *thought* that
CLUSTER acquired exclusive
Leif B. Kristensen wrote:
On Friday 14. March 2008, Adrian Klaver wrote:
Years ago I played around with MySQL because that
was what everybody was using. The problem was it did not do what I
wanted and Postgres did.
That pretty much sums up my experiences too. Back in 2002 when I started
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 08:43 -0700, Steve Crawford wrote:
Also, it is MVCC-safe only from 8.3 upwards; on older versions
it (incorrectly) deletes dead tuples that are still visible to old
transactions.
More interesting. I may have a broken mental-model. I *thought* that
CLUSTER
My understanding is that's not quite true. The client libraries are
GPL, so you can't use them directly, but I don't see what would stop
you using their ODBC/JDBC drivers with your non-GPL application
(especially if you support other ODBC databases as well). The server
can't be bundled in
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM, David Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My understanding is that's not quite true. The client libraries are GPL, so
you can't use them directly, but I don't see what would stop you using their
ODBC/JDBC drivers with your non-GPL application (especially if you
I imagine you can get round the second one by building your software
so it supports PostgreSQL as well - that way you don't 'require
customes to install MySQL'.
Well, I'm not sure how they'd even know you were doing this, but as a
commercial company, I'd suggest you not follow that advice
Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Of course, the main problem with CLUSTER is that it needs about 2x the
disk space of table + indexes.
Again checking my mental model. My understanding is that CLUSTER
basically recreates the tables and indexes and then swaps
On 14 Mar, 09:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jose javier parra sanchez)
wrote:
itself open source, you have to pay to get a license. Pay for GPL
software?
You cannot be serious, GPL has no relation with monetary value. The
GPL is a 'Usage License'. If i write GPL software to my clients,
should
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM, David Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sure sounds like if your application uses MySQL and you sell your
software (I presume this would include online services that charge for use
of the site and that site runs MySQL under the hood), you have to buy a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Ringer) writes:
Erik Jones wrote:
They've gotten around that by making MySQL dual-licensed. If
you're going to be using MySQL in a commercial application then you
can not use the GPL'd version, you have to use their paid,
commercial license.
My understanding is
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Chris Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Ringer) writes:
Erik Jones wrote:
They've gotten around that by making MySQL dual-licensed. If
you're going to be using MySQL in a commercial application then you
can not use the GPL'd
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I imagine you can get round the second one by building your software
so it supports PostgreSQL as well - that way you don't 'require
customes to install MySQL'.
Well, I'm not sure how they'd even know you were
Dave Page wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I imagine you can get round the second one by building your software
so it supports PostgreSQL as well - that way you don't 'require
customes to install MySQL'.
Well, I'm not sure how they'd even
On Donnerstag, 13. März 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
| My real complaint with InnoDB is it's a red headed step child. If
| mysql supported only innodb, it would be a very different database,
| and probably a bit simpler as well. no need to worry about how you
| state fk-pk relationships (currently
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Thomas Pundt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Donnerstag, 13. März 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
| My real complaint with InnoDB is it's a red headed step child. If
| mysql supported only innodb, it would be a very different database,
| and probably a bit simpler
At 11:37 AM 3/13/2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
I remember seeing something about some problems that using the
tablespace per table option on some mysql site... goes to look...
paraphrased from the Mysql Performance Blod... Using the
innodb_file_per_table=1 setting really tends to work against
Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel..
What about Postgres the list is not that
Currently postgresql's vacuum full also locks the affected tables.
Does 8.3 vacuum full effectively make a copy of the entire table? How
much extra space will the various vacuums use while vacuuming?
As to 8.3 and how it handles vacuum-full internally, I can't say for
certain without
Steve Crawford escribió:
Currently postgresql's vacuum full also locks the affected tables.
Does 8.3 vacuum full effectively make a copy of the entire table? How
much extra space will the various vacuums use while vacuuming?
As to 8.3 and how it handles vacuum-full internally, I can't
On Thursday 13 March 2008 5:36 am, rrahul wrote:
Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel..
On 14/03/2008, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo,
Andrej Ricnik-Bay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 14/03/2008, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel..
What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
What then? Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
effect? Geee, there's a
What then? Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
effect? Geee, there's a thought.
What a wide variety of topics. One big difference for me is that MySQL
used to be open source, but it no longer is. It's an odd hybrid OSS
that barely makes sense to me since they claim
Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
On 14/03/2008, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its your love
for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior than mysql.
But why does the client list dosen't tell that?
I see Mysql bosting
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, rrahul wrote:
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel..
Sure they are. Do some reading on the Google installation. The blog list
at http://www.mysql.com/customers/customer.php?id=75 works as well as any.
The reality here is that Google was just about fed up
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:08:27 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrej Ricnik-Bay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 14/03/2008, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see Mysql bosting for Google,Yahoo, Alcatel..
What about Postgres the list is not that impressive.
What then? Could it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:08:27 -0400
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marketing. Remember that MySQL AB have a strong financial incentive
to make organized efforts to locate and publicize impressive-sounding
users of MySQL. (I've heard rumors
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Wall) writes:
What then? Could it be marketing or the sad results of a avalanche
effect? Geee, there's a thought.
What a wide variety of topics. One big difference for me is that
MySQL used to be open source, but it no longer is. It's an odd hybrid
OSS that barely
On 14/03/2008, Steve Crawford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What can I say? 96% of personal computers run some form of
windows. Does that mean it's a superior product to a PC running
Linux, or a Mac w/ MacOS?
I'd say no (actually more like NOOO!), because windows doesn't let
me do 80%
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
A silly question in this context: If we know of a company that does use
PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can we take the liberty to
publicise this somewhere anyway?
Bad idea. There are companies who consider being listed as a user of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:05:10 -0400 (EDT)
Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote:
A silly question in this context: If we know of a company that
does use PostgreSQL but doesn't list it anywhere ... can
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I view updates/patches of any kind like this, if ain't broke don't fix it.
I normally only update computers with security patches only after i prove it
don't destroy installs.
But that's juast it.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 12:02 AM, Russell Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I view updates/patches of any kind like this, if ain't broke don't fix
it.
I normally only update computers with security
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Russell Smith wrote:
Scott Marlowe wrote:
I too wait a day or two to test it on a staging server, but
I've never had a pgsql update blow back in my face, and I've done an
awful lot of them.
So you missed 8.1.7 then or weren't using those features at the very
least? You
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 06:47 -0700, rrahul wrote:
Any major clients of the two.
You can add you own points too.
Perhaps someone can comment on current MySQL backups procedures. I
believe that MySQL used to (still does?) require shutdown to be backed
up. I don't know whether this was true for
You can make a backup in MySQL in several ways:
1) Using mysqldump;
2) Lock tables and copy their files one-by-one (MyISAM-only);
3) Shutdown server and copy all files (can be a slave in a replicated
setup);
4) Using InnoDB hot backup (commercial tool);
On 3/12/08, Reece Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reece Hart wrote:
On Tue, 2008-03-11 at 06:47 -0700, rrahul wrote:
Any major clients of the two.
You can add you own points too.
Perhaps someone can comment on current MySQL backups procedures. I
believe that MySQL used to (still does?) require shutdown to be backed
up. I don't know
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700
paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a database of InnoDB tables, people tend to replicate the
database, and then backup the slave (unless the db is trivially
That recalled me the *unsupported* feeling I have that it is easier
to setup a HA replication
Take a look at pgpool . http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/
2008/3/12, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700
paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a database of InnoDB tables, people tend to replicate the
database, and then backup the slave
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700
paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a database of InnoDB tables, people tend to replicate the
database, and then backup the slave (unless the db is trivially
That recalled me the *unsupported* feeling I have that it is
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:47:35 +0100
jose javier parra sanchez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Take a look at pgpool . http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/
I knew about it.
Giving a look at
http://pgpool.projects.postgresql.org/#restriction
it doesn't seem something that can be completely hidden to
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700
paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a database of InnoDB tables, people tend to replicate the
database, and then backup the slave (unless
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:26:21 -0700
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700
paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a database of InnoDB
--- Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look at the link I passed along before, you'll see the
difference
with MySQL is that they've been abusing their customers with minor
point
releases that try to add new features. Instead some of these
introduce
functional regressions,
Glyn Astill wrote:
--- Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look at the link I passed along before, you'll see the
difference
with MySQL is that they've been abusing their customers with minor
point
releases that try to add new features. Instead some of these
introduce
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:35:19 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is something I noticed too when looking at MySQL and postgres.
The frequency of bug fixes and features, some coming over pretty
quickly from the community
--- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Glyn Astill wrote:
--- Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you look at the link I passed along before, you'll see the
difference
with MySQL is that they've been abusing their customers with
minor
point
releases that try to
At 09:47 PM 3/11/2008, rrahul wrote:
Hi,
I am a database professional but have never used Postgre. My client was
exploring the posiblity of using Postgre instead of Mysql and wnated to know
the comments from the community.
I waned you people you post your views on the following comparision
Glyn Astill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MySQL has incentives to _not_ make their community release
production-quality.
I mean features being pulled into the enterprise release that haven't
had much time to be tested even in the community release.
For
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:13:14 -0700
paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For a database of InnoDB tables, people tend to replicate the
database, and then backup the slave (unless the db is trivially
That recalled me the
Well, if you have a crappy system that cannot sustain concurrent load or
even be backed up concurrently with regular operation, one solution is
to write a kick-ass replication system.
Still, it would be nice to have a kick-ass replication system for PG,
too. We've been toying with WAL
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:02 PM, paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Auto_increment columns as pkeys in InnoDB tables are practically
required, yet severely limited scalability due to how a transaction
would lock the structure to get the next auto-increment (significantly
improved in
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:02 PM, paul rivers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Auto_increment columns as pkeys in InnoDB tables are practically
required, yet severely limited scalability due to how a transaction
would lock the structure to get the next auto-increment
Hi,
I am a database professional but have never used Postgre. My client was
exploring the posiblity of using Postgre instead of Mysql and wnated to know
the comments from the community.
I waned you people you post your views on the following comparision points
1] Performance
2] Scalablity
3]
rrahul wrote:
Hi,
I am a database professional but have never used Postgre.
PostgreSQL, or Postgres rather than Postgre.
My client was
exploring the posiblity of using Postgre instead of Mysql and wnated to know
the comments from the community.
I waned you people you post your views on
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 6:47 AM, rrahul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I am a database professional but have never used Postgre. My client was
exploring the posiblity of using Postgre instead of Mysql and wnated to know
the comments from the community.
I waned you people you post your
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rrahul
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:48 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] postgre vs MySQL
Hi,
I am a database professional but have never used Postgre. My
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, rrahul wrote:
I waned you people you post your views on the following comparision points
1] Performance 2] Scalablity 4] Speed 6] robustness
These are all covered in more detail that you probably want at
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/techdocs.83
The quick summary is
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Richard Huxton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People here are bound to prefer PostgreSQL to MySQL, otherwise you'd
find us on a MySQL list. What sort of database were you looking at? On
what operating system? With what hardware?
I semi regularly post on the MySQL
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3] community support
It's not unheard of for someone who is really having a problem that looks
like a database bug to get one of the core PostgreSQL contributors poking
at their box to figure out what's going on.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
That kind of change does NOT get into production versions of
postgresql. With a yearly release schedule, postgresql doesn't have
to put dodgy performance updates in a production release.
This is worth expanding on: PostgreSQL doesn't put *any*
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote:
That kind of change does NOT get into production versions of
postgresql. With a yearly release schedule, postgresql doesn't have
to put dodgy performance updates in a
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:pgsql-general-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rrahul
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:48 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: [GENERAL] postgre
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm really hoping Sun will put a stop to such behavior, but wonder if
they'll do anything at all.
Sadly, the worst problem with the behavior re mysql releases is that
it trains DBAs to NOT install updates. In fairness, I know quite a
few Oracle DBAs
Tom Lane wrote:
Scott Marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm really hoping Sun will put a stop to such behavior, but wonder if
they'll do anything at all.
Sadly, the worst problem with the behavior re mysql releases is that
it trains DBAs to NOT install updates. In fairness, I
On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
I can tell you that new mysql updates don't get into Fedora, let alone
RHEL, till they've been around at least a month or two. That's not
laziness on my part; that's the burnt child shunning the fire.
That would make a great marketing quote: Update to
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I view updates/patches of any kind like this, if ain't broke don't fix it.
I normally only update computers with security patches only after i prove it
don't destroy installs.
But that's juast it. When a postgresql update
i've had to many sleepless nights rolling back patches on other software
to just roll out patches.
I'm a wait and see guy on most things. If its security update and the
server is exposed to the internet i dig into that right away.
Now if patch fixes a problem about data integrity i also dig
86 matches
Mail list logo
