Re: ALTER SEQUENCE - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Don Y
Subject Re: ALTER SEQUENCE
Date
Msg-id 446D5AE0.7020308@DakotaCom.Net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: ALTER SEQUENCE  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
Responses Re: ALTER SEQUENCE  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:00:48PM -0700, Don Y wrote:
>>> I see the documentation mention added August 1, 2005 byt Tom Lane.
>> Date tag on the bottom of my man pages is "2005-01-17" -- so that
>> explains *that*!  :>
>
> This is a very minor reason why you should be running the most recent
> 8.0.x release and not 8.0.3. A much bigger reason is that there are
> data-loss bugs that have been fixed.

<grin>  You're always faced with the decision of which set
of bugs/features to stick with during development.  If we
upgrade every time there is a new release, we spend lots of
time doing upgrades instead of developing!  :-(

The folks watching the Postgres releases haven't yet said
we need to "step forward".  The only problem *I* have found
has been documentation related (above) so not an inconvenience.
I don't believe any other folks have experienced major lossage
(here) under 8.0.3.  So, it hasn't been expensive to stick
with a non-current release.  (hopefully it will stay that
way for us for a while longer, yet...)


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Oliver A. Rojo"
Date:
Subject: Re: invalid byte sequence for encoding error
Next
From: Don Y
Date:
Subject: Re: Contributing code