| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Some vacuum & tuning help |
| Date: | 2003-08-06 12:54:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1060174448.19347.0.camel@zeutrh9 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2003-08-06 at 00:45, Tom Lane wrote:
> For core code, the answer would be a big NYET. We do not do feature
> additions in point releases, only bug fixes. While contrib code is more
> under the author's control than the core committee's control, I'd still
> say that you'd be making a big mistake to not follow that basic
> guideline. People expect release x.y.z+1 to be the same as x.y.z except
> for bug fixes. Introducing any new bugs into x.y.z+1 would cause a
> large loss in your credibility.
>
> (speaking as one who's introduced new bugs into a point-release
> recently, and is still embarrassed about it, even though the intent
> was only to fix older bugs...)
Right, OK, that is basically the answer I was expecting, but thought I
would ask.
Matthew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wilson A. Galafassi Jr. | 2003-08-06 13:50:38 | Postgresql slow on XEON 2.4ghz/1gb ram |
| Previous Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-06 12:53:40 | Re: PostgreSQL performance problem -> tuning |