Re: Partitions and work_mem?

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Oct 16, 2014 12:58 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> That is in fact exactly what people pay Red Hat to do, and it was my job
>> to do it for Postgres when I worked there. I don't work there any more,
>> but I'm sure my replacement is entirely capable of back-patching fixes as
>> needed.

> Do they backpatch everything, or just things like security issues? (in sure
> they can do either, but do you know what the policy says?)

Security issues are high priority to fix, otherwise it takes (usually)
complaints from paying customers and/or effective lobbying from the
package's maintainer. They have finite bandwidth for package updates,
and they also take seriously the idea that a RHEL release series is
supposed to be a stable platform. When I was there I was usually able
to get them to update to new PG minor releases only when said releases
involved security fixes, otherwise the can got kicked down the road...

> Either way it does also mean that the support requests for such versions
> would need to go to redhat rather than the community lists at some point -
> right now their 8.4 would be almost the same as ours, but down the road
> they'll start separating more and more of course.

If you want a fix in Red Hat's version of 8.4, you need to be talking to
them *now*, not "at some point". The community lost any input into that
when we stopped updating 8.4.

> For the op - of you haven't already, is suggest you take a look at
> yum.postgresql.org which will get you a modern, supported, postgresql
> version for rhel 6. Regardless of the support, you get all the other
> improvements in postgresql.

Yeah. Also, Red Hat is shipping a newer version (I think 9.2.something)
as part of their "software collections" packaging initiative. I do not
know whether that's included in a standard RHEL subscription or costs
extra.

regards, tom lane