Re: what Linux to run
От | David Boreham |
---|---|
Тема | Re: what Linux to run |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4F52D20D.6020803@boreham.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: what Linux to run (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: what Linux to run
Re: what Linux to run Re: what Linux to run Re: what Linux to run |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > [ raised eyebrow... ] As the person responsible for the packaging > you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that > the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages "can never be trusted". Certainly they > tend to be from older release branches as a result of Red Hat's desire > to not break applications after a RHEL branch is released, but they're > not generally broken AFAIK. > > No dissing intended. I didn't say or mean that OS-delivered PG builds were generally broken (although I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see that happen in some distributions, present company excluded). I'm concerned about things like : a) Picking a sufficiently recent version to get the benefit of performance optimizations, new features and bug fixes. b) Picking a sufficiently old version to reduce the risk of instability. c) Picking a version that is compatible with the on-disk data I already have on some set of existing production machines. d) Deciding which point releases contain fixes that are relevant to our deployment. Respectfully, I don't trust you to come to the correct choice on these issues for me every time, or even once. I stick by my opinion that anyone who goes with the OS-bundled version of a database server, for any sort of serious production use, is making a mistake.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: