In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joris Dobbelsteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
% Could people for once treat bugs as unacceptable instead an accepted
% thing?
It seems like you're responding to someone who's saying precisely
that he considers bugs unacceptable and doesn't want to introduce
them int
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Erik
Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "CAJ CAJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Lif
Jim Nasby wrote:
On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
As the owner of a 1986 Toyota Celica, I can accept the argument that a
newer car with slightly brighter paint might not be worth the switch.
Yup... that's why I drive a 1991 Acura.
Of course, there's also the fact that the NS
On Mar 21, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
As the owner of a 1986 Toyota Celica, I can accept the argument that a
newer car with slightly brighter paint might not be worth the switch.
Yup... that's why I drive a 1991 Acura.
Of course, there's also the fact that the NSX will do 180MPH..
Naz Gassiep escribió:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >This line of argument ignores the fact that newer versions often contain
> >fixes for data-loss-grade bugs. Now admittedly that is usually an
> >argument for updating to x.y.z+1 rather than x.y+1, but I think it
> >destroys any reasoning on the basis of
Tom Lane wrote:
Naz Gassiep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Example discussion with customer:
...
Finally, in the absence of security concerns or performance issues (and
I mean the "we can't afford to buy better hardware" type edge of the
envelope type issue
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brandon Aiken
>Sent: woensdag 21 maart 2007 15:25
>To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases
>
[snip]
>Software *always* has bugs.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Naz Gassiep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Example discussion with customer:
>> ...
>> Finally, in the absence of security concerns or performance issues (and
>> I mean the "we can't afford to buy better hardware" type edge of the
>> envelope type issu
> All that being said, the older the version you are running, the higher
> the weight that should be attributed to the "upgrading is a good idea
> just coz" argument. After a point, upgrading is just a good idea "just
> coz". I wouldn't recommend anyone continue to run 7.2.x merely because
> it wa
are needed?
--
Brandon Aiken
CS/IT Systems Engineer
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:29 AM
To: Naz Gassiep
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Erik Jones; CAJ CAJ; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENE
Naz Gassiep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Example discussion with customer:
> ...
> Finally, in the absence of security concerns or performance issues (and
> I mean the "we can't afford to buy better hardware" type edge of the
> envelope type issues) there is zero *need*
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Example discussion with customer:
Customer: CMD, should we update to 8.2.3
CMD: Is there something in 8.2.3 that will benefit you?
Customer: We don't know
CMD: Are you having problems with 8.1? (We try to push all customers to
at least 8.1)
Customer: No, it is just that 8.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> As the owner of a 1986 Toyota Celica, I can accept the argument that a
> newer car with slightly brighter paint might not be worth the switch.
>
> However, considering the number of features proposed for 8.3, we might
> not have 8.3 final until September/October.
That may c
As the owner of a 1986 Toyota Celica, I can accept the argument that a
newer car with slightly brighter paint might not be worth the switch.
However, considering the number of features proposed for 8.3, we might
not have 8.3 final until September/October. I am not saying that will
happen, but it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) writes:
> Joshua D. Drake escribió:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> Erik Jones wrote:
>> >>> I really hope you meant upgrades to 8.2.x. And, no, it's not worth
>> >>> waiting. Upgrade at the soonest available opportuni
On Mar 15, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
He could wait for 8.4 as well, as it will be probably faster and have
more features than 8.3. Following your reasoning, one could wait
essentially forever.
H... precisely the reason my cell phone hasn't been replaced in a
long tim
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
("Joshua D. Drake") transmitted:
>>> There is zero question that 8.2 is faster than 7.4 *but* if 7.4 isn't
>>> slow for them... Note, that I meant no reason for him to upgrade 7.4
>>> *right now*. He could wait for 8.3. (I thi
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik
Jones) transmitted:
> On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:17 PM, CAJ CAJ wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> What is the lifecycle of a 8.0/8.1/8.2 releases? With 8.3 scheduled to
> be released in July, what will be the stat
On Mar 15, 2007, at 1:55 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Your other four points are mere rehashings of that one.
Yes. All of my points directly revolve around the reality that 8.2
is a
short cycle release and that 8.3 is a long cycle release. Further that
due to 8.2 being a short cycle releas
>
> Your other four points are mere rehashings of that one.
Yes. All of my points directly revolve around the reality that 8.2 is a
short cycle release and that 8.3 is a long cycle release. Further that
due to 8.2 being a short cycle release, it will not see as much
production action as 8.3 (and
Jones; CAJ CAJ; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. More people will run 8.3 than 8.2. Why? Because 8.3 will be in the
> wild as current stable longer than 8.2.
Oh, gimme a break, J
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. More people will run 8.3 than 8.2. Why? Because 8.3 will be in the
> wild as current stable longer than 8.2.
Oh, gimme a break, Josh. A year or more from now that argument would be
relevant, but unless you are going to counsel your customers not
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I can't really argue for 8.2 versus 8.3, but I can argue that as 8.3 is
>> literally around the corner, it may make sense to wait.
>
> Today is the ides of March ... while the most optimistic estimate I've
> heard for 8.3 release i
> I also tend to run every other version. I've run 7.2, then 7.4, then
> 8.1. I've tested and played with 8.2 and speed wise, it wasn't a
> compelling enough upgrade to start the very long process of replacing
> 8.1 with. By the time 8.3 comes out, I'll be about ready to start
> evaluating our
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 00:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Erik Jones wrote:
> >> I really hope you meant upgrades to 8.2.x. And, no, it's not worth
> >> waiting. Upgrade at the soonest available opportunity, expecially the
> >> 7.4.x servers.
>
> > I don't
>> There is zero question that 8.2 is faster than 7.4 *but* if 7.4 isn't
>> slow for them... Note, that I meant no reason for him to upgrade 7.4
>> *right now*. He could wait for 8.3. (I think he should get off 7.4 in
>> general)
>
> He could wait for 8.4 as well, as it will be probably faster an
Joshua D. Drake escribió:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Erik Jones wrote:
> >>> I really hope you meant upgrades to 8.2.x. And, no, it's not worth
> >>> waiting. Upgrade at the soonest available opportunity, expecially the
> >>> 7.4.x servers.
> >
> >>
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I can't really argue for 8.2 versus 8.3, but I can argue that as 8.3 is
> literally around the corner, it may make sense to wait.
Today is the ides of March ... while the most optimistic estimate I've
heard for 8.3 release is high summer. Maybe that
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Erik Jones wrote:
>>> I really hope you meant upgrades to 8.2.x. And, no, it's not worth
>>> waiting. Upgrade at the soonest available opportunity, expecially the
>>> 7.4.x servers.
>
>> I don't really agree with this. If he is r
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Erik Jones wrote:
>> I really hope you meant upgrades to 8.2.x. And, no, it's not worth
>> waiting. Upgrade at the soonest available opportunity, expecially the
>> 7.4.x servers.
> I don't really agree with this. If he is running 7.4.16 there very
Erik Jones wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:17 PM, CAJ CAJ wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> What is the lifecycle of a 8.0/8.1/8.2 releases? With 8.3 scheduled to
>> be released in July, what will be the status of the 7.4.x branch?
>>
>> We are planning pg upgrades from 8.0.x/7.4.x to 6.2.x and were
>> wond
On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:17 PM, CAJ CAJ wrote:
Hello,
What is the lifecycle of a 8.0/8.1/8.2 releases? With 8.3 scheduled
to be released in July, what will be the status of the 7.4.x branch?
We are planning pg upgrades from 8.0.x/7.4.x to 6.2.x and were
wondering if it's worth waiting for th
Hello,
What is the lifecycle of a 8.0/8.1/8.2 releases? With 8.3 scheduled to be
released in July, what will be the status of the 7.4.x branch?
We are planning pg upgrades from 8.0.x/7.4.x to 6.2.x and were wondering if
it's worth waiting for the 8.3 release.
Thanks in advance!
33 matches
Mail list logo
