Naz Gassiep escribió:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >This line of argument ignores the fact that newer versions often contain
> >fixes for data-loss-grade bugs. Now admittedly that is usually an
> >argument for updating to x.y.z+1 rather than x.y+1, but I think it
> >destroys any reasoning on the basis of "if it ain't broke".
> Not when you consider that I did say "in the absence of security
> concerns". I consider the possibility that a bug can cause me to lose my
> data to be a "security concern". If it's a cosmetic bug or something
> that otherwise does not affect a feature I use, then upgrading, as you
> say, is very much of a x.y+1 wait than upgrading minor releases
> sometimes multiple times a month.
We don't do cosmetic fixes in minor versions. All fixes are "security
concerns" per your definition above; though obviously not per most
people's definition, which is about crackers getting into their
machines, denials of service or other such problems. Some minor
releases do not contain security fixes, but they do contain fixes for
data-loss-grade bugs, as Tom says.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
