Message-ID: <4CA268CC.8090300@burntmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 18:14:36 -0400
From: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1@burntmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Running 9 in production? Sticking with 8.4.4 for a
 while?
References: <AANLkTinLE8vF4uUaY6gspbn76g4sxbaThdNkHj8kXTqj@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CA253ED.9080403@2ndquadrant.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CA253ED.9080403@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 9/28/2010 4:45 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Tory M Blue wrote:
>> I'm doing an OS upgrade and have been sitting on 8.4.3 for sometime. I
>> was wondering if it's better for the short term just to bring things
>> to 8.4.4 and let 9.0 bake a bit longer, or are people with large data
>> sets running 9.0 in production already?
>
> I'm aware of two people with large data sets who have been running 9.0
> in production since it was in beta. Like most code, what you have to
> consider is how much the code path you expect to use each day has been
> modified during the previous release. If you're using 9.0 as "a better
> 8.4", the odds of your running into a problem are on the low side of the
> risk curve. But those using the features that are both new and were
> worked on until the very end of the development cycle, like the new
> replication features, they are much more likely to run into a bug.

A conservative approach is never to use version x.0 of *anything*.  The 
PG developers are very talented (and also very helpful on these mailing 
lists - thanks for that), but they are human.  For work I'm paid to do 
(as opposed to my own or charity work), I like to stay at least one 
point release behind the bleeding edge.

-- 
Guy Rouillier