Hi,
On Mon, 2017-12-25 at 16:39 +0200, Benyamin Guedj wrote:
> Is working with the default distribution’s version (9.2) really the “best
> practice”, even though it is no longer supported?
Red Hat / CentOS also provides PostgreSQL 9.6 (and 9.5, IIRC), via SCL. I mean,
those versions are also "su
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Jaime Casanova <
jaime.casan...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 25 December 2017 at 09:39, Benyamin Guedj
> wrote:
> >
> > Upon doing so, our DevOps team in response insisted (and still insists)
> that
> > we keep using version 9.2 as it is part of the Centos 7 distr
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:48:09PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> so you have two options:
>>
>> 1) use the packages from yum.postgresql.org for a supported version
>> 2) get commercial support for your out-of-community-support verssion
>>
On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 06:48:09PM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> so you have two options:
>
> 1) use the packages from yum.postgresql.org for a supported version
> 2) get commercial support for your out-of-community-support verssion
>
> but even if you do 2, that would be a preparatory step loo
On 25 December 2017 at 09:39, Benyamin Guedj wrote:
>
> Upon doing so, our DevOps team in response insisted (and still insists) that
> we keep using version 9.2 as it is part of the Centos 7 distribution, and
> they believe that version to be “best practice”, even though PostgreSQL 9.2
> is no lon
Hello,
The company I’m working for develops a product which uses Centos 6/7
(different versions of the product) and also uses Vertica and PostgreSQL.
During the course of the development of the latest version of our product,
we ran into problems that lead us to contact Vertica’s R&D team, which