Peter Eisentraut napsal(a):
Am Tuesday, 29. July 2008 schrieb Greg Sabino Mullane:
Why would anyone running PostgreSQL 8.1 in production upgrade their
stable server to Python 2.5, and remove Python 2.4 in the process?
Because the keep their operating system up to date, and because we still
do not have any sort of in-place upgrade.
And neither does Python. Someone taking the step from Python 2.4 to 2.5 might
as well do a major upgrade of PostgreSQL as well.
What is the use case, except "build farm maintainers can't keep their
environments stable"?
What's not stable about having Python 2.5?
I mean "stable" to mean "does not change (unnecessarily)". When PostgreSQL
8.1 was released, Python 2.5 was not yet out. So whoever was installing
PostgreSQL 8.1 must have done it on a system that had Python 2.4. Why not
keep that?
+1 I think there is more important and more logical things for backporting like
system timezone patch.
Problem what I see there is that buildfarm are not stable. I think stability of
environment is one of basic requirements for buildfarm server. The major
advantages is heterogeneity of installation but if everybody update system up to
the atest version than finally we will get unified servers installation.
However, many machines are also production machines and they usually need to
update sometimes. I think that any SW upgrade should be logged. It helps to
track issues.
Zdenek
--
Zdenek Kotala Sun Microsystems
Prague, Czech Republic http://sun.com/postgresql
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
