Re: many animals are running old clients

On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Darcy Buskermolen <darcyb(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> That particular era of equipment is still quite prominent in telecom
> central office environments, and I know of several telcom nms solutions
> that use PostgreSQL. However having said that it's of little likelyhood
> that those are being updated to use newer versions of postgres or even
> wether or not they receive security/bugfixes....
>

Right - we have some customers in that category; they're usually the ones
asking for extended support on ancient releases.

>
>
>
>
>
> Sent on the go, from somewhere other than here.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
> Date: 2018-08-30 05:32 (GMT-06:00)
> To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>,
> buildfarm-members(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: many animals are running old clients
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 11:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> > On 08/29/2018 10:35 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> >> It's very far from a 5 minute job on ancient Solaris boxes :-(
>>
>> > Please let me know when issues like this arise.
>>
>> One thing of the same ilk is that a few months ago I had to give up on
>> using https reporting on gaur/pademelon, and switch back to http.
>> I don't think that was your fault, because it was not associated with a
>> buildfarm client upgrade. It appeared to me that the pginfra folk had
>> changed something to require newer TLS versions in https connections to
>> the buildfarm server. Like Dave, I spent a fair while trying to install
>> new-enough Perl modules to fix that, without a lot of success: newer
>> Perl code doesn't compile on that platform.
>>
>> It's debatable of course how much anyone cares about buildfarm animals
>> that are this old. I've already shut down pademelon since its compiler
>> never heard of C99, and I don't see much point in running it on just
>> the back branches.
>>
>
> Right - I do wonder that about this machine (whether it's worth
> supporting, not whether its compiler supports C99). Here's what we're
> talking about:
>
> -bash-3.00$ cat /etc/release
> Solaris 10 11/06 s10s_u3wos_10 SPARC
> Copyright 2006 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
> Use is subject to license terms.
> Assembled 14 November 2006
> -bash-3.00$ prtconf -b
> name: SUNW,Sun-Blade-1000
> model: SUNW,501-6230
> banner-name: SUNW,Sun-Blade-2000 (2 X UltraSPARC-III+)
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company