Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:51:42 -0500
From: Bill Moran <wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
To: Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?
Message-Id: <20071119085142.580a8975.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
In-Reply-To: <474191FC.3090402@verizon.net>
References: <473D659B.1070008@nekomancer.net>
	<20071116094541.GA5177@depesz.com>
	<474091D4.4000201@nekomancer.net>
	<3E736C3C-9137-4B14-9010-95E57B8385F0@decibel.org>
	<474191FC.3090402@verizon.net>
Organization: Collaborative Fusion
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In response to Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net>:

> Decibel! wrote:
> > On Nov 18, 2007, at 1:26 PM, gabor wrote:
> >> hubert depesz lubaczewski wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:40:43AM +0100, G=E1bor Farkas wrote:
> >>>> we are moving one database from postgresql-7.4 to postgresql-8.2.4.
> >>> any particular reason why not 8.2.5?
> >>
> >> the distribution i use only has 8.2.4 currently.
> >=20
> > Then I think you need to consider abandoning your distribution's
> > packages or find a better distribution. IIRC, 8.2.5 is over 2-3 months
> > old now; there's no reason a distribution shouldn't have it at this
> > point. (Unless of course you haven't kept your distribution
> > up-to-date... ;)
>=20
> Some people run distributions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (their
> latest); I do. postgresql that comes with that.
>=20
> Now once they pick a version of a program, they seldom change it. They do
> put security and bug fixes in it by back-porting the changes into the sou=
rce
> code and rebuilding it. I guess for postgresql the changes were too much =
for
> backporting, so they upgraded from postgresql-8.1.4-1.1 that came with it
> originally and are now up to postgresql-8.1.9-1.el5. I am pretty sure they
> will never upgrade RHEL5 to the 8.2 series because they do not do it to g=
et
> new features.
>=20
> Now you may think there are better distributions than Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux 5, but enough people seem to think it good enough to pay for it and
> keep Red Hat in business. I doubt they are all foolish.
>=20
> Luckily I do not seem to be troubled by the problems experienced by the O=
.P.
>=20
> I do know that if I try to use .rpms from other sources, I can get in a l=
ot
> of trouble with incompatible libraries. And I cannot upgrade the libraries
> without damaging other programs.

I think you've missed the point.

The discussion is not that the distro is bad because it hasn't moved from
8.1 -> 8.2.  The comment is that it's bad because it hasn't updated a
major branch with the latest bug fixes.  i.e. it hasn't moved from 8.1.4
to 8.1.5.

If this is indeed the case, I agree that such a distro isn't worth using.

--=20
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/

wmoran@collaborativefusion.com
Phone: 412-422-3463x4023