Feedback-ID: i76984098:Fastmail
Message-ID: <df049c50-f059-4757-b253-46c483709da4@aklaver.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2025 22:05:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
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>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>,
 "pgsql-generallists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org>
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>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
In-Reply-To: <1847617.1761357202@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/df049c50-f059-4757-b253-46c483709da4%40aklaver.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 10/24/25 18:53, Tom Lane 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.

Yes and no. Yes someone needs to test new software, no that is not for 
everyone. The presence and uptake of LTS software indicates that being 
on the edge of development is something folks would like to avoid. I 
know as I use LTS versions of Ubuntu and Django for that very reason, I 
want to get work done without worry about having to pick up 'shiny bits 
and pieces'. That being said, it allows me the time to kick the tires on 
new software, of current interest Polars and Duckdb. It comes down to 
time available and what you want to spend that time on. That could very 
well mean making testing 'Somebody Else's Problem', in the way that 
Postgresql Core has made packaging some else's problem:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/427155.1755538776@sss.pgh.pa.us

"
The core project wouldn't document that, because we just ship source
code not RPMs.  There might be a README in the core postgresql RPM
package telling you what's what.
"

> 
> 			regards, tom lane


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com