From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>,
        Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>,
        "pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Index corruption issue after migration from RHEL 7 to RHEL 9 (PostgreSQL 11 streaming replication)
In-reply-to: <CAApHDvq5-7UO1PZBcizg13_ptE0mP=iKwFKUHqhKjwTmS6YR-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJ4rSwspyYBppQS701C=BVFX2yrP1JErgDCZXbC15BQh2zAS1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKAnmmK47O_rYDB4iPe=K3QiqzJcCnnxCoYs_40Q1YWb=x0nDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ4rSwvsRJhwfuem0vsws1WwRZPN8Ju2Nw0e0Oc2j7n=MXUhMg@mail.gmail.com> <8d340169-b500-4048-a665-0700813313a3@aklaver.com> <CAKAnmmLDfgYRX8oC6S7jKZyovv6wy72Twq6-hx315GKTowMjew@mail.gmail.com> <c319a69b-a667-4536-9aba-d75a4235b786@aklaver.com> <CANzqJaBq3hcAUXhSi5ar0=Gw0QxqfmD_E47dxHAex9_D3Yv-WA@mail.gmail.com> <2b09033b-d375-488d-9188-17a0f214e823@aklaver.com> <CAApHDvo5pLSwD4JVxW8t94Vc88djKrrSyrL-GbQJ=hb2NVT5zg@mail.gmail.com> <4babadbd-cc61-43e7-b7fb-3053dcdaadac@aklaver.com> <CAApHDvq5-7UO1PZBcizg13_ptE0mP=iKwFKUHqhKjwTmS6YR-A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 25 Oct 2025 14:06:15 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1847616.1761357202.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 21:53:22 -0400
Message-ID: <1847617.1761357202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1847617.1761357202%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 13:40, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> =
wrote:
>> 1) From previous posts to this list folks have mentioned their
>> organizations prohibit touching anything less then a GA or maybe a late
>> RC. That comes from on high and I doubt the folks issuing the orders ar=
e
>> on this list.

> That seems bizarre to me. If they want new releases of PostgreSQL to
> be as stable as possible as early as possible, then beta and RC are
> much better times to test than .0 is.

I think the folks issuing that sort of order believe that testing is
Somebody Else's Problem.  The folly of that approach is pretty evident
to those of us toiling in the software trenches, but maybe not so much
from the C-suite.

			regards, tom lane