Re: failure to drop table due to pg_temp_7 schema

On 11/15/25 10:10, Peter 'PMc' Much wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 08:06:22AM -0800, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> ! On 11/15/25 06:57, Peter 'PMc' Much wrote:
> ! >
> ! > Hi,
> !
> ! > Que is this: https://github.com/que-rb/que
> !
> ! Personally I would be more worried about an application
> ! where the last commit was:
> !
> ! Changelog: Add entry for version 2.4.1
> ! committed
> ! on Oct 27, 2024.
> 
> Really? I'd call that quite recently.
> 
> And there is an explanation: Rails has dropped automated support
> for Que. That doesn't matter to me, because I'm not using it in the
> automated fashion. But it means the big user base is gone, and
> therewith the influx of improvement desires.
> 
> ! Makes you wonder what will happen if you upgrade to a newer version
> ! of Postgres?
> 
> I'll see when I'm there. Still have to wait for the new kerberos in
> FreeBSD - there will be a lot more to mangle anyway.
> 
> But speaking generally, I am quite bewildered that a simple tool
> being stable for a year might already be considered worrisome.

If the tool was self contained and did not rely on other software that 
might be alright. This tool does not, it has dependencies on Postgres 
and Rails and OS. They will be moving on. If you never change any of 
current versions of these then again you may be alright. Is that your 
intention?

Then there is the issue of issues:

https://github.com/que-rb/que/issues

The last one was closed Jan 30, 2024, with six new ones added since then 
and 37 open ones from before. The question is it moving from stable to 
moribund? Or more to the point are you willing to do your own tech 
support for the tool?



> Normally, a new technology brings a vast amount of innovation for
> the first or second decade, and then it starts to stabilize.
> We in the IT do the opposite, we ever increase the change rate,
> and I am wondering where this is supposed to lead.
> 
> cheers,
> PMc


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com