Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Added to TODO: o Remove pre-7.3 pg_dump code that assumes pg_depend does not exit --- Tom Lane wrote: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server depends on whether there are any clients out there which use it which is harder to determine and not affected by whether Postgres 7.3 is still around. Right. There's really not much to be gained by dropping it on the server side anyway. libpq might possibly be simplified by a useful amount, but on the other hand we probably want to keep its current structure for the inevitable v4 protocol. Another area where we might think about dropping some stuff is pg_dump. If we got rid of the requirement to support dumps from pre-7.3 servers then it could assume server-side dependencies exist, and lose all the code for trying to behave sanely without 'em. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
+1 On Nov 29, 2007 4:09 AM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:37:04 -0500 Tom Lane wrote: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote: Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported. I know at least one customer who is using RHEL-3 and PG 7.3 on dozens machines worldwide. Are they running 7.3.20? Will they update to 7.3.21 promptly when we ship it? Or are they using whatever Red Hat includes in RHEL-3? (which is still 7.3.19 I believe) I'm not sure, which micro version they are using right now. I only know, they have 7.3.x, cause i already had to take care of this on some projects. One of the reasons for losing interest in frequent updates is that it seems most of the people we hear from who are running 7.3.x are running a pretty obsolete x. If we produce an update and no one actually installs it, we're just wasting time with make-work. I said: we should not disband support of 7.3 today, release a final version next week and that's it. Something like 3, 4 month of pre-announce seems to be ok for me and i don't think, this makes much difference. Kind regards -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. (Ferenc Mantfeld) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:00:51 -0800 Andrew Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: software. I doubt there are any plans to trim the 7.3 branch from CVS and I imagine that the community will be happy to work with anyone Considering we still have Postgres95 in the tree I would bet you are right :) Joshua D. Drake - -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTxsCATb/zqfZUUQRAh+fAJ9l8Z/Al4IYfCTzhkjp5WcMiktSqACffjxy p5zktLRONzoGWiTxwJspiVA= =sxSk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Nov 29, 2007 11:11 AM, Ron Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Treat wrote: On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:07, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? ... Perhaps we should ask for volunteers to maintain that branch? ... +1 to see if anyone else wants to take over management of the branch. I also think we should be a bit more generous on the EOL notice. One thing that could soften the blow is if the EOL notice mentions which commercial organizations will provide paid support for longer than the community does. I assume that's one of the benefits of going with the commercial support organizations? I bet there's plenty. Perhaps calling it an EOL is a mistake since the concept does not perfectly map between OSS and commercial software. I doubt there are any plans to trim the 7.3 branch from CVS and I imagine that the community will be happy to work with anyone who wishes to back-port patches, up to and perhaps including rolling their patch into CVS. This is very different from a traditional EOL. Perhaps Switching over to passive / user driven support is a better way to phrase this? We can of course emphasize the availability of commercial organizations that are willing to take over active support for anyone willing to pay for it. Do we have any numbers on the downloads of 7.3.x for the last few values of x? That might be a good indicator of how many people are actually following the upgrade path. Andrew
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Robert Treat wrote: On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:07, Simon Riggs wrote: On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? ... Perhaps we should ask for volunteers to maintain that branch? ... +1 to see if anyone else wants to take over management of the branch. I also think we should be a bit more generous on the EOL notice. One thing that could soften the blow is if the EOL notice mentions which commercial organizations will provide paid support for longer than the community does. I assume that's one of the benefits of going with the commercial support organizations? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Hi, On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: I assume you no longer need to maintain it for Redhat then? Well, I still do, nominally, but RHEL-3 is in maintenance mode (meaning no more scheduled updates). It would take a fairly serious bug to get Red Hat's attention to the point that they'd want to turn the package. So +1 for dropping support for 7.3, per these. BTW, we can provide community RPMs for 7.3+RHEL 3, if needed... /me will be very happy to drop 7.3 packages from his list. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Tom Lane napsal(a): Comments, opinions? Is it time to remove old communication protocol support and cleanup code in 8.4? Zdenek ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
I'm not a developper, but it occured to me that you should consider dropping the support for client-server wire protocol v2. I quote a comment I found in JDBC driver's code: // NOTE: To simplify this code, it is assumed that if we are // using the V3 protocol, then the database is at least 7.4. That // eliminates the need to check database versions and maintain // backward-compatible code here. // // Change by Chris Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too. I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. Comments, opinions? Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
I'm not a developper, but it occured to me that you should consider dropping the support for client-server wire protocol v2. I quote a comment I found in JDBC driver's code: // NOTE: To simplify this code, it is assumed that if we are // using the V3 protocol, then the database is at least 7.4. That // eliminates the need to check database versions and maintain // backward-compatible code here. // // Change by Chris Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too. I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. Comments, opinions? Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Alexandru Cârstoiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too. I think the second half of this is correct. There would be no need to support the old protocol in client interface drivers since the only supported databases would all support the new protocol. Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server depends on whether there are any clients out there which use it which is harder to determine and not affected by whether Postgres 7.3 is still around. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Gregory Stark wrote: This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too. I think the second half of this is correct. There would be no need to support the old protocol in client interface drivers since the only supported databases would all support the new protocol. Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server depends on whether there are any clients out there which use it which is harder to determine and not affected by whether Postgres 7.3 is still around. Actually it doesn't make sense to do it halfway (for example, why would you keep the v2 protocol in the database if it is not supported anymore by clients?!). Either you drop v2 support or you don't, if the community is keen on preserving compatibility between any client and any database. I for one am not keen on that. Just as I would drop support for Java older than 1.4 in the JDBC driver. Anyway, the decision is not mine. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server depends on whether there are any clients out there which use it which is harder to determine and not affected by whether Postgres 7.3 is still around. Right. There's really not much to be gained by dropping it on the server side anyway. libpq might possibly be simplified by a useful amount, but on the other hand we probably want to keep its current structure for the inevitable v4 protocol. Another area where we might think about dropping some stuff is pg_dump. If we got rid of the requirement to support dumps from pre-7.3 servers then it could assume server-side dependencies exist, and lose all the code for trying to behave sanely without 'em. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:30:55 + Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexandru Cârstoiu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too. I think the second half of this is correct. There would be no need to support the old protocol in client interface drivers since the only supported databases would all support the new protocol. Except that we just broke the proposed upgrade path if we do that... Let's not put people in a catch-22. Joshua D. Drake - -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTZWlATb/zqfZUUQRAr81AJ0SnmMp8cbPk99ELPqtSeGC6hgK7gCeMypg tE0pv8Gq8N3wlFOD4NOgFL8= =Mlaj -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Tom Lane wrote: Gregory Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server depends on whether there are any clients out there which use it which is harder to determine and not affected by whether Postgres 7.3 is still around. Right. There's really not much to be gained by dropping it on the server side anyway. libpq might possibly be simplified by a useful amount, but on the other hand we probably want to keep its current structure for the inevitable v4 protocol. If we officially remove support for it, we could make modifications to it without having to consider V2 support. Not that I have any in the pipeline, but certainly it would make future changes easier if you don't have to consider backwards compatibility. Perhaps we could add a warnings message to the logs when a user connects using the v2 protocol for now, to give users fair warning? (and then drop it per 8.4). Or to take it even further, a guc that disables protocol v2 by default but can be enabled for users who are actually using it? Another area where we might think about dropping some stuff is pg_dump. If we got rid of the requirement to support dumps from pre-7.3 servers then it could assume server-side dependencies exist, and lose all the code for trying to behave sanely without 'em. That would certainly simplify it. There'd still be a supported upgrade path - just start by upgrading to 8.2 (or really, any supported version), *then* upgrade from that version to the latest one. That kind of required-step upgrade is fairly common with commercial products, and given how old 7.3 is I think it would be very acceptable. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:37:04 -0500 Tom Lane wrote: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote: Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported. I know at least one customer who is using RHEL-3 and PG 7.3 on dozens machines worldwide. Are they running 7.3.20? Will they update to 7.3.21 promptly when we ship it? Or are they using whatever Red Hat includes in RHEL-3? (which is still 7.3.19 I believe) I'm not sure, which micro version they are using right now. I only know, they have 7.3.x, cause i already had to take care of this on some projects. One of the reasons for losing interest in frequent updates is that it seems most of the people we hear from who are running 7.3.x are running a pretty obsolete x. If we produce an update and no one actually installs it, we're just wasting time with make-work. I said: we should not disband support of 7.3 today, release a final version next week and that's it. Something like 3, 4 month of pre-announce seems to be ok for me and i don't think, this makes much difference. Kind regards -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. (Ferenc Mantfeld) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:53:14 -0500 Robert Treat wrote: I also think we should be a bit more generous on the EOL notice. Saying one more update after 8.3 is akin to giving a 1 month EOL notice; not friendly at all imo. Set it for July 2008 and I think you have given plenty of notice (and given the lack of back patches, should be too much of a burden in that time either) +1 for that. Kind regards -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product. (Ferenc Mantfeld) ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:02:24 -0500 Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By chance I happened to notice in the release notes Release 7.3 Release date: 2002-11-27 Man, it feels like a long time since that came out... 5 years was a long time ago :) There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? Yes. I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. Comments, opinions? Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend - -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ UNIQUE NOT NULL Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTGtNATb/zqfZUUQRAl88AKCpMx0tfZpU8T8raSIMciB7qxdN5QCfdvOJ gbZY1k844q+xjqwGdntkoaY= =+cMu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
--- Original Message --- From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Sent: 27/11/07, 19:02:24 Subject: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. I assume you no longer need to maintain it for Redhat then? If that's the case, I'm for dropping it given it's age. /D ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. I assume you no longer need to maintain it for Redhat then? Well, I still do, nominally, but RHEL-3 is in maintenance mode (meaning no more scheduled updates). It would take a fairly serious bug to get Red Hat's attention to the point that they'd want to turn the package. If something like that came up, very possibly we'd want to put out a fix too. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of not bothering with back-patching non-catastrophic bugs, and not automatically including 7.3 in the set of branches we make back-branch releases for. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
At some point back, I seem to recall the reason for bothering to backpatch to 7.3 is that it had to be maintained for RedHat anyway, so things might as well be backpatched? If that requirements is gone, I think it's time to drop it. +1 And +1 on pushing out one final end of the tree release since there's stuff there. +1 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: By chance I happened to notice in the release notes Release 7.3 Release date: 2002-11-27 Man, it feels like a long time since that came out... There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. Comments, opinions? At some point back, I seem to recall the reason for bothering to backpatch to 7.3 is that it had to be maintained for RedHat anyway, so things might as well be backpatched? If that requirements is gone, I think it's time to drop it. And +1 on pushing out one final end of the tree release since there's stuff there. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. I assume you no longer need to maintain it for Redhat then? Well, I still do, nominally, but RHEL-3 is in maintenance mode (meaning no more scheduled updates). It would take a fairly serious bug to get Red Hat's attention to the point that they'd want to turn the package. If something like that came up, very possibly we'd want to put out a fix too. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of not bothering with back-patching non-catastrophic bugs, and not automatically including 7.3 in the set of branches we make back-branch releases for. OK, well +1 for dropping it from me then. /D ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out. Well, I agree that it shouldn't be your responsibility to do that. We need to reduce the things you have to worry about to allow you to focus on later releases. One of the good things about open source is the ability for software to remain supported for many years longer than closed source software. Perhaps we should ask for volunteers to maintain that branch? If we had a maintenance release manager, then they can take responsibility for passing down any appropriate bug fixes. We could also create a new list for people discussing older releases, so we don't get pinged all the time. That way anybody with an application at older release levels can either step up to the plate or lose support. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote: Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported. I know at least one customer who is using RHEL-3 and PG 7.3 on dozens machines worldwide. Yes, they are moving to 8.2 but this will require some more month and eventually not all machines can just be updated to a newer OS/DB version. So i'm also for stopping support for 7.3 but not the way you proposed. If we have supported 7.3 up to now, there should be an official notice with a date, when support ends. This date should not be the next and final release some days after the notice ;-) Kind regards -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum German PostgreSQL User Group ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Tom, There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? The community consensus I recall was three versions only. Anything beyond that would be up to the vendors. Mind you, I don't know what EDB guarentees but the Sun folks could end up patching everything back to 8.1 for the next 5 years depending on customer demand. So I think 5 years will be a reality for us for the conceivable future. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? The community consensus I recall was three versions only. Anything beyond that would be up to the vendors. Yeah, but some of us are also the vendors ;-). I still figure that if I have to maintain branch X for Red Hat, I might as well put those fixes in the community CVS. I should think that Sun, EDB, et al would also find it expedient to not need to maintain private patch sets. So it seems to me that the vendor EOL horizons are legitimate to consider while deciding what the community wants to support. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote: Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported. I know at least one customer who is using RHEL-3 and PG 7.3 on dozens machines worldwide. Are they running 7.3.20? Will they update to 7.3.21 promptly when we ship it? Or are they using whatever Red Hat includes in RHEL-3? (which is still 7.3.19 I believe) One of the reasons for losing interest in frequent updates is that it seems most of the people we hear from who are running 7.3.x are running a pretty obsolete x. If we produce an update and no one actually installs it, we're just wasting time with make-work. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Josh Berkus wrote: Tom, There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally instituting that? The community consensus I recall was three versions only. Anything beyond that would be up to the vendors. Mind you, I don't know what EDB guarentees but the Sun folks could end up patching everything back to 8.1 for the next 5 years depending on customer demand. So I think 5 years will be a reality for us for the conceivable future. I don't know that we came up with a highly specific policy. My recollection was something like Support would be maintained for n years (or possibly releases), after which we could discontinue support at any time if bugs were unpatchable. The burden of maintaining back releases isn't really all that great, ISTM. I have no objection to cutting a release and declaring it final (with a possible exception for security fixes). cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:07, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
instituting that?
I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE
branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the
actual policy should be only one more update after 8.3 comes out.
Well, I agree that it shouldn't be your responsibility to do that. We
need to reduce the things you have to worry about to allow you to focus
on later releases.
One of the good things about open source is the ability for software to
remain supported for many years longer than closed source software.
Perhaps we should ask for volunteers to maintain that branch? If we had
a maintenance release manager, then they can take responsibility for
passing down any appropriate bug fixes. We could also create a new list
for people discussing older releases, so we don't get pinged all the
time.
That way anybody with an application at older release levels can either
step up to the plate or lose support.
+1 to see if anyone else wants to take over management of the branch. I also
think we should be a bit more generous on the EOL notice. Saying one more
update after 8.3 is akin to giving a 1 month EOL notice; not friendly at all
imo. Set it for July 2008 and I think you have given plenty of notice (and
given the lack of back patches, should be too much of a burden in that time
either)
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
Hi, On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 23:53 -0500, Robert Treat wrote: I also think we should be a bit more generous on the EOL notice. Saying one more update after 8.3 is akin to giving a 1 month EOL notice; not friendly at all imo. Set it for July 2008 and I think you have given plenty of notice (and given the lack of back patches, should be too much of a burden in that time either) +1 for this. Regards, -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ , RHCE PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
