From: | Alban Hertroys <dalroi(at)solfertje(dot)student(dot)utwente(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | Jason <jason(dot)friess(at)lmco(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL 8.2.3 |
Date: | 2010-11-10 18:49:38 |
Message-ID: | 7D286063-BD5D-404E-B397-F49F0F51B986@solfertje.student.utwente.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10 Nov 2010, at 18:30, Jason wrote:
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> Yes - we're aware that there are newer versions of PostgreSQL out there. If
> it were completely up to us we would be using 8.2.18 or even 8.4. The
> problem is - we need to install on a network that has a rather involved
> approval process for all software tools that are introduced. 8.2.3 was
> previously approved. Getting a newer version of PostgreSQL approved would
> probably take time that we do not have given the time-critical nature of our
> effort.
What happens if for some other piece of approved software a patch comes out? Do you need to approve the patched version of the software again or is it okay to apply it?
I think you may have made an error by getting specifically PG 8.2.3 approved. I think you should have tried to get 8.2 (without the minor version number) approved instead.
Also, now is probably a good time to start with getting 8.4 or even 9.0 approved, so that you can upgrade in the not too distant future.
Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
!DSPAM:737,4cdae95810261036690396!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Harris | 2010-11-10 19:46:10 | Re: Failed archive_command copy - number of attempts configurable? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-10 18:16:10 | Re: PostgreSQL 8.2.3 |