Re: postgres crashes - could not reattach to shared memory

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Sofer, Yuval" <Yuval_Sofer(at)bmc(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres crashes - could not reattach to shared memory
Date: 2010-05-02 19:34:54
Message-ID: t2n937d27e11005021234i19f322a4m8e0648e24b22ddd4@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>> On 5/2/10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I'm not so sure it's fair to the users though.
>
> Well, we did promise that Windows 8.2 would have the same lifespan as
> 8.2 on other platforms:
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/news.865

Right.

> The planned EOL is only a year and a half away anyway.  OTOH, if it's
> doubling your effort to build Windows binary distributions, maybe
> it's not worth continuing to support it.

Probably 66% of the effort in a back branch release is the 8.2
installer for me. The 8.3 MSI installer build automates (or
eliminates) much of the harder manual work, and the one-clicks are
100% automated - the effort there has been put in over the longer term
to develop them in a maintainable way.

But... unless there are other good reasons (like we actually can't fix
things without serious effort, rather than we just can't be bothered),
I don't want my time to be the cause of us dropping it early.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gordon Shannon 2010-05-02 19:47:02 Re: Tracking down log segment corruption
Previous Message Ivan Voras 2010-05-02 19:19:32 Re: File compression in WinXP