From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Maintenance Policy? |
Date: | 2009-07-12 01:02:19 |
Message-ID: | 4A59361B.6060002@agliodbs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hmmm, how about this?
"The current policy of the PostgreSQL community is to stop providing
minor versions (patches or updates) of PostgreSQL five years after a
version of PostgreSQL is released. In general, users can expect to
continue to be able to get community updates for five years.
However, there have been exceptions in both directions. Some companies
choose to continue back-patching PostgreSQL and make those updates
available to the community past the fifth anniversary. Other times
issues with build tools have caused us to discontinue a particular
version early, such as 8.0 and 8.1 for Windows, which stopped getting
updates in binary form after only 2 years.
Overall, if you have specific lifetime requirements for your database
products, we strongly urge you to get a long-term support contract with
a PostgreSQL support vendor <link>.
As examples of this policy, below are the dates at which updates of
specific version became unavailable:
<table here>
"
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
www.pgexperts.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-07-12 01:18:23 | Re: Maintenance Policy? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-07-12 00:53:56 | Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock? |