| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: what Linux to run |
| Date: | 2012-03-04 02:05:05 |
| Message-ID: | 18351.1330826705@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> writes:
> Long thread - figured may as well toss in some data:
> We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed on
> the postgresql.org web site.
> We've found that the PG shipped as part of the OS can never be trusted
> for production use, so we don't care what version ships with the OS --
> we'll never use it.
[ 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Boreham | 2012-03-04 02:23:09 | Re: what Linux to run |
| Previous Message | ArArgyridis | 2012-03-03 22:32:40 | Create topology from a shape file |