Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:46:42 -0500
From: Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: autovacuum: recommended?
In-reply-to: <20071119085142.580a8975.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Message-id: <4741AFE2.1050504@verizon.net>
Organization: Institute for Regimented Whimsey
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT
References: <473D659B.1070008@nekomancer.net>
	<20071116094541.GA5177@depesz.com>	<474091D4.4000201@nekomancer.net>
	<3E736C3C-9137-4B14-9010-95E57B8385F0@decibel.org>
	<474191FC.3090402@verizon.net>
	<20071119085142.580a8975.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070317)

Bill Moran wrote:
> 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, Gábor 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.
>>> 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... ;)
>> Some people run distributions such as Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (their
>> latest); I do. postgresql that comes with that.
>>
>> 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 source
>> 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 get
>> new features.
>>
>> 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.
>>
[snip]
> 
> I think you've missed the point.

I think you are right.
> 
> 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.
> 
... and I can keep RHEL5 because they went from 8.1.4 to 8.1.9. ;-)

-- 
  .~.  Jean-David Beyer          Registered Linux User 85642.
  /V\  PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A         Registered Machine   241939.
 /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey    http://counter.li.org
 ^^-^^ 10:40:01 up 27 days, 3:58, 2 users, load average: 4.43, 4.85, 5.17