MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <1847617.1761357202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <1847617.1761357202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 15:19:19 +1300
Message-ID: <CAApHDvq8e5pXqPZXDuZ_dbTE+vkRUR3FhVOGW4XzV3HUG80a-g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Index corruption issue after migration from RHEL 7 to RHEL 9
 (PostgreSQL 11 streaming replication)
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>, Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>, 
	"pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvq8e5pXqPZXDuZ_dbTE%2BvkRUR3FhVOGW4XzV3HUG80a-g%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 25 Oct 2025 at 14:53, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> 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 are
> >> 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.

Yeah, I expect that'll be true all too often. However, it doesn't mean
that people around here can't attempt to propagate an education to
them on why they're wrong. There certainly is much less hope if they
only receive confirmation.

David