On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, David G. Johnston < david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Igal @ Lucee.org <i...@lucee.org> wrote: > >> On 10/18/2017 7:45 AM, Ron Johnson wrote: >> >> On 10/18/2017 09:34 AM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote: >> >> A bit off-topic here, but why upgrade to 9.6 when you can upgrade to >> 10.0? >> >> >> There's no way we're going to put an x.0.0 version into production. >> >> >> Then think of it as 9.7.0 but with an easier name to pronounce ;) >> > > The OP likely intended to say "x.0" version; which a "[9.7].0" version is > just the same as a [10].0 version > > The contributors do an excellent job but the reality of this community is > that a critical mass of people do not start seriously testing and using a > new version until it is officially released. The first couple of bug-fix > releases are thus, unfortunately, likely to be non-trivial as the masses > flex the system at scales and using workloads that were not known or > available to the developers. Its a balancing act for most and falling on > the side of waiting for a few point releases before promoting to production > is, I suspect, common. > > David J. > > 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. -- *Melvin Davidson* I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
