Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases
Date
Msg-id 45F9968E.5060207@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases  (Erik Jones <erik@myemma.com>)
Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases  (Naz Gassiep <naz@mira.net>)
List pgsql-general
>
> Your other four points are mere rehashings of that one.

Yes. All of my points directly revolve around the reality that 8.2 is a
short cycle release and that 8.3 is a long cycle release. Further that
due to 8.2 being a short cycle release, it will not see as much
production action as 8.3 (and definitely not 8.1 per the current
enterprise releases).

That to me is an extremely valid point, and a point that my customers
have made *to me*.

Example discussion with customer:

Customer: CMD, should we update to 8.2.3
CMD: Is there something in 8.2.3 that will benefit you?
Customer: We don't know
CMD: Are you having problems with 8.1? (We try to push all customers to
at least 8.1)
Customer: No, it is just that 8.2 is the current release
CMD: True, but 8.3 is due out in the summer and 8.3 is a standard cycle
release
Customer: Oh... o.k. let's wait.
CMD: I think that is probably prudent.


I am not just coming up with this stuff to be difficult. This is real
world here. Couple the above, with my previous post and *unless* there
is something that 8.2 gives you explicitly (and there are reasons to
upgrade to 8.2), there *may* (note word *may*) not be a reason to upgrade.

Take that and add, that 8.3 is just around the corner and my argument
stands.

The only argument anyone that I see against the above is the, "upgrade
because it is shiny argument". Which indeed may (there is that word
again) be enough. In business, shiny can be bad.

What I see in this thread, is people saying 8.2.3 is the cat's meow,
which of course is true. That doesn't mean that you need to upgrade.

I have a 8 year old Saab 9-5 V6 Turbo. It has leather, heated and air
conditioned seats. True, it is 8 years old, but it only has 62k on it.
The new model, offers some better styling, a 4 cylinder with more
horsepower and the paint reflects light just a little better.

Does that mean I want to take my debt free car, and trade it in for a
new 40k loan? Not on your life, my 8 year old Saab has at least 2 more
years in it and I was smart and bought an extended warranty.

Why is it, that every time someone suggests that someone may not need to
upgrade to the latest and greatest paint job, social networking site or
piece of software that people get upset?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


>
>             regards, tom lane
>


--

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Brandon Aiken"
Date:
Subject: Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases
Next
From: Erik Jones
Date:
Subject: Re: Lifecycle of PostgreSQL releases