Re: Finally upgrading to 9.6!

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, David G. Johnston <
david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Igal @ Lucee.org <igal(at)lucee(dot)org> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2017 7:45 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On 10/18/2017 09:34 AM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote:
>>
>> A bit off-topic here, but why upgrade to 9.6 when you can upgrade to
>> 10.0?
>>
>>
>> There's no way we're going to put an x.0.0 version into production.
>>
>>
>> Then think of it as 9.7.0 but with an easier name to pronounce ;)
>>
>
> The OP likely intended to say "x.0" version; which a "[9.7].0" version is
> just the same as a [10].0 version
>
> The contributors do an excellent job but the reality of this community is
> that a critical mass of people do not start seriously testing and using a
> new version until it is officially released. The first couple of bug-fix
> releases are thus, unfortunately, likely to be non-trivial as the masses
> flex the system at scales and using workloads that were not known or
> available to the developers. Its a balancing act for most and falling on
> the side of waiting for a few point releases before promoting to production
> is, I suspect, common.
>
> David J.
>
>
I support the policy of using caution with regards to new versions. They
are often thought of as "bleeding edge" for the reason described by David G
Johnston. The fact that PostgreSQL 10 was only released this month is
critical and therefore is should not be a production server. It should be
used as development, or QA, at best.

--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.