On Monday 29 September 2003 11:41 am, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I do agree that people running that old a Linux distro need to think
> > about updating more than just Postgres, though. They have kernel bugs
> > as well as PG bugs to fear :-(
> Plus all the well known vulnerabilities
Tom Lane wrote:
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This isn't necessarily true. That old of a version of PostgreSQL is probably
running on a quite out-of-date OS -- for instance, if the OS was Red Hat
Linux, then the point at which 6.2.1 was shipped was RHL 5.0. Can you even
compile Postgr
On Friday 26 September 2003 10:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This isn't necessarily true. That old of a version of PostgreSQL is
> > probably running on a quite out-of-date OS -- for instance, if the OS was
> > Red Hat Linux, then the point at which 6.2.1 was shi
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This isn't necessarily true. That old of a version of PostgreSQL is probably
> running on a quite out-of-date OS -- for instance, if the OS was Red Hat
> Linux, then the point at which 6.2.1 was shipped was RHL 5.0. Can you even
> compile PostgreSQL 7.3.
No, I got this job 2 months ago, I don`t know who managed it before, and I
don`t know why didn`t he upgrade. Until this week I didn`t have the chance
to upgrade.
But it runs now on 7.3.4.
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Thursday 25 September 2003 07:36, Hornyak Laszlo wrote:
> >
On Friday 26 September 2003 02:29, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> Well, I am sure there are data corruption bugs fixed between 6.2 and
> current CVS head which would count as large impact in terms of numbers and
> severity.
Indeed there are.
> Its not like oracle upgrade where you have to move the
Hornyak Laszlo wrote:
I think it is not that simple. How should I explain the company leaders
why I must stop the system. It may risk their bussiness success too. I can
tell them that the new db is more stable, but until the old one does the
job, it is still acceptable for them (it served the syst
On Thursday 25 September 2003 07:36, Hornyak Laszlo wrote:
> I think it is not that simple. How should I explain the company leaders
> why I must stop the system. It may risk their bussiness success too. I can
> tell them that the new db is more stable, but until the old one does the
> job, it is s
I think it is not that simple. How should I explain the company leaders
why I must stop the system. It may risk their bussiness success too. I can
tell them that the new db is more stable, but until the old one does the
job, it is still acceptable for them (it served the system for 5-6 years
or so
I wonder if we should have an auto-responder so when someone says they
are running 6.5, we can reply --- Yikes, upgrade.
In fact, we could go with a little chart:
7.3.4 great
7.3.0-3 please upgrade, it is easy
7.2 consider upgrading
7.1 wow, that is old
10 matches
Mail list logo
