Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers?

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>
Cc: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Is it time to kill support for very old servers?
Date: 2016-10-10 12:06:58
Message-ID: CAMsr+YF6E8=WaiFrJeexFq91qHC4y-GSt=ojtO5jVC1M7VoJNg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10 October 2016 at 10:45, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/7/16 1:08 PM, Steve Crawford wrote:
>>
>> This is effectively a 5-year upgrade "grace period" *after* the EOL date
>> of a given version which seems plenty generous.
>
>
> IMHO we need to be careful here. It's not at all unusual to see servers
> running versions that are *far* older than that. It's certainly
> understandable that we're not actively supporting those versions any more,
> but we also don't want people to effectively be stranded on them because
> they can't even get the data out and back into a newer version. So I think
> pg_dump at least should try to support as far back as we can without jumping
> to lots of hoops in code. I think moving the limit to 8.0 is fine, but I'm
> not so comfortable with making that limit 9.1.

The oldest I deal with is 8.2, and that's enough of an aberration that
expecting them to go via 9.6 isn't wholly unreasonable. I agree 9.0 is
way too far.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2016-10-10 12:21:24 Re: memory leak in e94568ecc10 (pre-reading in external sort)
Previous Message Francisco Olarte 2016-10-10 11:34:02 Re: Question / requests.