| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)unicell(dot)co(dot)il> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: stopping processes, preventing connections |
| Date: | 2010-03-20 23:12:35 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d11003201612h13378a7ap5d1e5334fde010c8@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Herouth Maoz <herouth(at)unicell(dot)co(dot)il> wrote:
>
>
> The problem is not so much danger in upgrading, but the fact that doing so
> without using the system's usual security/bugfix update path means
> non-standard work for the sysadmin, meaning he has to upgrade every package
> on the system using a different upgrade method, being notified about it from
> a different source, and needing to check each one in different conditions,
> which makes his work impossible. So the policy so far has been "Use the
> packages available through debian". So I'll need to check if there is an
> upgrade available through that path - and the question is whether it's
> worthwhile (i.e. whether the bug in question has indeed been fixed).
I'm certain debian keeps the pgsql packages up to date within a few
days or at most weeks of their release .
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Mead | 2010-03-21 01:01:27 | Re: Restrict allowed database names? |
| Previous Message | Herouth Maoz | 2010-03-20 21:57:53 | Re: stopping processes, preventing connections |