Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?

> >     Doing it this way means, that a mission critical installation
> >     will use v6.4.* until some time after we've put out at  least
> >     v6.5.1. Thus, we should care about them.
>
> Now I see why you patching against 6.4.

    That's  the  reason.  One  of  the  biggest drawbacks against
    Postgres is (for many companies at least), that you can't buy
    support.

    If  we  only  care  a  little  for  the last official release
    branch, it'll be much better than any payable support  for  a
    commercial product. Yes, I believe it - we have the power.

    I  recall  some  replies  to recent problem reports on v6.3.2
    where we told "upgrade to  v6.4.2"  (shame  on  us).   That's
    easier  said  than  done,  if  someone  has  big applications
    breaking on new features.

    I know that it isn't true,  but  these  "upgrade  to  another
    release"  answers  instead of "install bugfix release vX.X.X"
    look  like  we  don't  care  about  anyone  who  really  uses
    Postgres,  not  only  playing  around  with  it just for fun.
    That's the sound of M$.

    Patching against v6.4 takes time. It must  be  done  manually
    nearly all the time since patches don't apply clean. But it's
    the only way to give Postgres a real good reputation.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#======================================== jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #