On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 12:15:37AM -0700, David Garamond wrote: > i read in several places (like in recent osnews.com newspiece and some > other prior postings to this list) that mysql 4.0.x is supposed to be > "stable" now. but the front page of mysql.com still lists 4.0.5 under > "development".
It's currently Gamma code. It's close to production quality in the eyes of the developers. > so does the mysql developers suggest that mysql is still "unstable" or > "non-production" yet? i'd love to use some 4.x features, but i am > reluctant of migrating my max-3.23.53a installations over to max-4.0.5 > because of this. is migration recommended/acceptable now? (yes, i know > the "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" saying. but i could use some of > the new features of 4.x...) We've been using it in production at Yahoo! since 4.0.2. Our master is still at 3.23.51 (for one more week) but the slaves have been running various versions of 4.0.x. Jeremy -- Jeremy D. Zawodny | Perl, Web, MySQL, Linux Magazine, Yahoo! <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | http://jeremy.zawodny.com/ MySQL 3.23.51: up 21 days, processed 623,330,542 queries (339/sec. avg) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
