Tom Lane wrote:
> Red Hat 6.2 is still nominally supported (until March 31, it says here)
> so I suppose there's a corporate compulsion to back-patch anything
> that's labeled a security issue.  But let's get real ... PG 6.anything
> is stone-age code now.
>                       regards, tom lane
>                       Red Hat Database project
> PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
> be a 7.2.4.  Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
> so they get to make the decision...

Who, us?  Well, there is the confusion factor of releasing a patch to a
superceeded major version.  Wrapping it up and putting it out really
isn't a big deal.  Marc?

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to