Am Tuesday, 29. July 2008 schrieb Greg Sabino Mullane:
> > Why would anyone running PostgreSQL 8.1 in production upgrade their
> > stable server to Python 2.5, and remove Python 2.4 in the process?
>
> Because the keep their operating system up to date, and because we still
> do not have any sort of in-place upgrade.
And neither does Python. Someone taking the step from Python 2.4 to 2.5 might
as well do a major upgrade of PostgreSQL as well.
> > What is the use case, except "build farm maintainers can't keep their
> > environments stable"?
>
> What's not stable about having Python 2.5?
I mean "stable" to mean "does not change (unnecessarily)". When PostgreSQL
8.1 was released, Python 2.5 was not yet out. So whoever was installing
PostgreSQL 8.1 must have done it on a system that had Python 2.4. Why not
keep that?
In fact, someone upgrading such a system would have to *rebuild* PostgreSQL.
Who does that on a production system?
> The buildfarm is meant to test many different combinations of
> factors that may or may not be seen in the field, and in this case it is
> doing that job admirably.
Yes indeed. The test results say: This combination doesn't work; use some of
these other alternatives. Why not leave it at that?
