From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)doot(dot)org> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Concerns about this release |
Date: | 2001-12-19 23:52:27 |
Message-ID: | 4713.1008805947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mitch Vincent" <mitch(at)doot(dot)org> writes:
> So if anyone doesn't mind to take a minute, could I get opinions? Is it too
> paranoid to not use the 7.2 release in production?
Don is working from the "don't be a pioneer" theory, which is hard to
dispute in the abstract. In the concrete, though, I see little reason
to think that 7.2 will be less reliable than 7.1.*, even before we fix
the inevitable early-return bugs and issue a 7.2.1. We have not made
any huge changes like WAL in this cycle.
As an idle exercise, I just went through the CVS log entries since
7.2beta2 (Nov 6, about six weeks ago). I counted 68 log entries that
I could classify as bug fixes; of these, 47 were for bugs that exist in
7.1, the other 21 for new bugs introduced in 7.2 code. I'd call about
4 of the old bugs and 6 of the new ones significant issues (eg, a core
dump is significant, fixing to_char's handling of roman numeral dates
is not). 4 out of the 6 significant new-bug fixes were in the first two
weeks of the six-week period.
You can read those numbers however you want, but to me they look like
7.2.0 will be better than 7.1.anything.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashley Cambrell | 2001-12-20 00:51:03 | Re: 7.2 is slow? [compile problem] |
Previous Message | Doug McNaught | 2001-12-19 23:44:02 | Re: Concerns about this release |