| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tory M Blue <tmblue(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rakesh Kumar <rakeshkumar464(at)mail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AWS Aurora and PG 10 |
| Date: | 2017-12-19 17:06:44 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaoWOoxfAdAFHTqHNJdRCiYJqEQUPDtVaz48Ti3Qk_hQg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Tory M Blue <tmblue(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Actually in us-west-1 9.x is not even available <sigh>
>
You seem to be confused as to both PostgreSQL versioning and AWS
offerings. I could deploy a 9.6.5 (one patch release behind the current
9.6 release) to us-west-1 right now if I wanted to. And saying "9.x"
doesn't make sense - that versioning scheme began with 10.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-12-19 17:24:03 | Re: PostgreSQL suitable? |
| Previous Message | Alexander Stoddard | 2017-12-19 17:00:12 | Re: PostgreSQL suitable? |