From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
cc: Igor Neyman <ineyman@perceptron.com>,
 Dave Johansen <davejohansen@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>,
 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Partitions and work_mem?
In-reply-to: 
 <CABUevExXh6yKfRDNh4ErFqT9NprpYLbgr5CS3XNnk+RHymYzbA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAAcYxUd--XzHPRsr3wz++x8HLzFUGLYyWUt4vy6+zTup+cviLw@mail.gmail.com>
 <WM!5fdd5ac9d18da5bfa0e8e7d6b818177909c920ad8c5054b4b25187213867bf59b65cc1c417195ceb9f339276cfefc500!@asav-3.01.com>
 <543EAAA2.8010701@agliodbs.com>
 <CAAcYxUfK8n59yArjM7=pbbOdPNGkCXmD3hnXw49P_Ltdg=DxHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70ECAB2FAAC5@mail.corp.perceptron.com>
 <CAAcYxUfEzOyBk3v=weg0x67ye6CnGn0hsUCgBEiCbQSrJC93RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70ECAB2FAAF3@mail.corp.perceptron.com>
 <CAAcYxUf-xkjHFDUT5uGjCKiu7++H1hezBNEQyAA9iVVhX2Wybw@mail.gmail.com>
 <A76B25F2823E954C9E45E32FA49D70ECAB2FAB40@mail.corp.perceptron.com>
 <22717.1413413894@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CABUevExXh6yKfRDNh4ErFqT9NprpYLbgr5CS3XNnk+RHymYzbA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
 message dated "Mon, 17 Nov 2014 07:57:01 +0100"
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:13:42 -0500
Message-ID: <23623.1416237222@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Oct 16, 2014 12:58 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> That is in fact exactly what people pay Red Hat to do, and it was my job
>> to do it for Postgres when I worked there.  I don't work there any more,
>> but I'm sure my replacement is entirely capable of back-patching fixes as
>> needed.

> Do they backpatch everything, or just things like security issues? (in sure
> they can do either, but do you know what the policy says?)

Security issues are high priority to fix, otherwise it takes (usually)
complaints from paying customers and/or effective lobbying from the
package's maintainer.  They have finite bandwidth for package updates,
and they also take seriously the idea that a RHEL release series is
supposed to be a stable platform.  When I was there I was usually able
to get them to update to new PG minor releases only when said releases
involved security fixes, otherwise the can got kicked down the road...

> Either way it does also mean that the support requests for such versions
> would need to go to redhat rather than the community lists at some point -
> right now their 8.4 would be almost the same as ours, but down the road
> they'll start separating more and more of course.

If you want a fix in Red Hat's version of 8.4, you need to be talking to
them *now*, not "at some point".  The community lost any input into that
when we stopped updating 8.4.

> For the op - of you haven't already, is suggest you take a look at
> yum.postgresql.org which will get you a modern, supported, postgresql
> version for rhel 6. Regardless of the support, you get all the other
> improvements in postgresql.

Yeah.  Also, Red Hat is shipping a newer version (I think 9.2.something)
as part of their "software collections" packaging initiative.  I do not
know whether that's included in a standard RHEL subscription or costs
extra.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance