Tom Lane wrote:
> Red Hat 6.2 is still nominally supported (until March 31, it says here)
> so I suppose there's a corporate compulsion to back-patch anything
> that's labeled a security issue. But let's get real ... PG 6.anything
> is stone-age code now.
>
> regards, tom lane
> Red Hat Database project
>
> PS: I'm not taking a position on Justin's suggestion that there should
> be a 7.2.4. Marc and Bruce would be the ones who have to do the work,
> so they get to make the decision...
Who, us? Well, there is the confusion factor of releasing a patch to a
superceeded major version. Wrapping it up and putting it out really
isn't a big deal. Marc?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
