Re: Postgres 8.2 binary for ubuntu 6.10?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Hannes Dorbath <light(at)theendofthetunnel(dot)de>, Anton Melser <melser(dot)anton(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres 8.2 binary for ubuntu 6.10?
Date: 2007-07-12 15:43:36
Message-ID: 20316.1184255016@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 09:04:38AM +0200, Hannes Dorbath wrote:
>> This god like faith of some admins in package maintainers, that they
>> know what's right, good and stable for them, sometimes really worries me.

> The problem is the mismatch between what distrbuters want and what the
> postgres team wants. For distributors "stable" means no behavioural
> changes, whereas the postgresql team does bug fixes, some of which
> definitly make behavioural changes that would make previously working
> programs break.

I think we have a pretty good track record of not doing that except when
it's forced by a need to plug a security hole.

However, distributors certainly have more constraints than one could
wish. For instance, at Red Hat I can't just push a new Postgres update
into RHEL releases at my whim --- there are company constraints based on
available QA resources and suchlike. So sometimes the RHEL version of
PG lags behind the community version just because of manpower/scheduling
issues. They have been pretty good about letting me push security
updates promptly, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aurynn Shaw 2007-07-12 15:51:05 Re: Mac OS X
Previous Message Andrew Edson 2007-07-12 15:29:39 Panic error on attempted update