| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4? |
| Date: | 2003-01-18 05:16:00 |
| Message-ID: | 200301180516.h0I5G0G02227@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Red Hat 6.2 is still nominally supported (until March 31, it says here)
> so I suppose there's a corporate compulsion to back-patch anything
> that's labeled a security issue. But let's get real ... PG 6.anything
> is stone-age code now.
>
> regards, tom lane
> Red Hat Database project
>
> PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
> be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
> so they get to make the decision...
Who, us? Well, there is the confusion factor of releasing a patch to a
superceeded major version. Wrapping it up and putting it out really
isn't a big deal. Marc?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-01-18 05:52:10 | Re: v7.3.1 psql against a v7.2.x database ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-18 05:08:54 | Re: Can we revisit the thought of PostgreSQL 7.2.4? |