Re: [GENERAL] Finally upgrading to 9.6! - Mailing list pgsql-general

On 18 October 2017 at 17:17, Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10/18/2017 08:17 PM, Don Seiler wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Vik Fearing
>> <vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com <mailto:vik.fearing@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 10/18/2017 05:57 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
>>     >
>>     > I support the policy of using caution with regards to new versions. They
>>     > are often thought of as "bleeding edge" for the reason described by
>>     > David G Johnston. The fact that PostgreSQL 10 was only released this
>>     > month is critical and therefore is should not be a production server. It
>>     > should be used as development, or QA, at best.
>>
>>     No, the Betas and RC should have been used in development and QA.
>>
>> I disagree with this. It isn't my company's business to test the
>> Postgres software in development, as much as it would be needed and
>> appreciated by the community.
>
> Yeah, let others do it for you!  Great attitude.

We need *some* people doing this; I don't think beating people up for
not being "beta testers" is terribly friendly.

The one thing I'd want to poke at is "don't avoid 10.0 simply because of
there being a 0 there."

If someone would have declined to use 9.7.0, considering that "too beta,"
then it's reasonable to decline 10.0, as that is a reasonably similar policy.

On the other hand, if you'd have accepted 9.7.0, and are declining
10.0.0 just "because too many 0's", that's not so right, and I'd want
to encourage considering it.

>> We're testing our own applications and
>> processes, and this should be done with a "stable" product, more or
>> less. So I'd only ever think to have them use an official release versus
>> a beta or release candidate.
>
> And how do you think the product becomes stable?  By magic?
>
>> That said, count me in the same camp with the "Never .0" folks.
>
> Yes, I gathered that.
>
>> I'm planning a mass upgrade to 9.6 soon as well and the question was raised
>> as to whether or not to go right to 10.0, and I quickly put that down.
>
> Right, because when you say "official release versus a beta or release
> candidate", you don't actually mean it.

I'm inclined to wait a bit on 10.0, not because I expect it to be
particularly problematic, but because it's fairly reasonable to expect
other things to not be ready instantaneously.  And that includes some
things one might reasonably hope for.

- We have a Slony release that supports 10.0, but were there to be some lag, some people might be inclined to wait for
that.

- The same applies to any number of interesting third party applications or libraries.

- Might want to wait until binaries are included in Debian Stable or some favored Red Hat or CentOS release or such.

There's plenty of reasonable arguments for waiting a bit.

I'd contend that "otta be running 10.0 in Dev/QA" isn't so
obviously apropos.  I tend to have my workstation running
"bleeding edge" versions of things so that I notice
sharp edges early, but what we always want to have most
folks running are the *same* versions in Dev+QA+Prod,
so that there aren't unexpected differences.
-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"


-- 
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general