Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FBAF9FBA1E
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 May 2007 01:37:18 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 74822-03 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 May 2007 01:37:16 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F3A29FB96B
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue,  8 May 2007 01:37:15 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l484bDMw022750;
	Tue, 8 May 2007 00:37:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Best OS for Postgres 8.2 
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0705072330240.24382@westnet.com> 
References: <1178574927.533849.90730@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0705072330240.24382@westnet.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
	message dated "Mon, 07 May 2007 23:56:14 -0400"
Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 00:37:13 -0400
Message-ID: <22749.1178599033@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200705/83
X-Sequence-Number: 24473

Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> Debian packages PostgreSQL in a fashion unique to it; it's arguable 
> whether it's better or not (I don't like it), but going with that will 
> assure your installation is a bit non-standard compared with most Linux 
> installas.

<dons red fedora>

What Debian has done is set up an arrangement that lets you run two (or
more) different PG versions in parallel.  Since that's amazingly helpful
during a major-PG-version upgrade, most of the other packagers are
scheming how to do something similar.  I'm not sure when this will
happen in the PGDG or Red Hat RPMs, but it probably will eventually.

> Given the buginess and unexpected changes from packages updates of every 
> Fedora Core release I've ever tried, I wouldn't trust any OS from that 
> line to run a database keeping track of where my socks are at.  Core 6 
> seems better than most of the older ones.  I find it hard to understand 
> what it offers that Centos doesn't such that you'd want Fedora instead.

Fedora is about cutting edge, RHEL is about stability, and Centos tracks
RHEL.  No surprises there.  (<plug> and if someday you want commercial
support for your OS, a Centos->RHEL update will get you there easily.
AFAIK Red Hat doesn't have a clean solution for someone running Fedora
who suddenly realizes he needs a 24x7-supportable OS right now.
Something to work on... </plug>)

</dons red fedora>

			regards, tom lane