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'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.
--
Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
