Re: ALTER SEQUENCE

From: Don Y <pgsql(at)DakotaCom(dot)Net>
To: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER SEQUENCE
Date: 2006-05-19 05:42:56
Message-ID: 446D5AE0.7020308@DakotaCom.Net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:00:48PM -0700, Don Y wrote:
>>> I see the documentation mention added August 1, 2005 byt Tom Lane.
>> Date tag on the bottom of my man pages is "2005-01-17" -- so that
>> explains *that*! :>
>
> This is a very minor reason why you should be running the most recent
> 8.0.x release and not 8.0.3. A much bigger reason is that there are
> data-loss bugs that have been fixed.

<grin> You're always faced with the decision of which set
of bugs/features to stick with during development. If we
upgrade every time there is a new release, we spend lots of
time doing upgrades instead of developing! :-(

The folks watching the Postgres releases haven't yet said
we need to "step forward". The only problem *I* have found
has been documentation related (above) so not an inconvenience.
I don't believe any other folks have experienced major lossage
(here) under 8.0.3. So, it hasn't been expensive to stick
with a non-current release. (hopefully it will stay that
way for us for a while longer, yet...)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Don Y 2006-05-19 05:54:02 Re: Contributing code
Previous Message Oliver A. Rojo 2006-05-19 05:15:51 Re: invalid byte sequence for encoding error