Dave Page wrote: > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > From: Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Sent: 28/01/07, 17:39:00 > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Predicted lifespan of different PostgreSQL branches > > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > Also, three just seems like a sensible number to maintain. I kinda > > > like Magnus' idea to put older releases into a sort of 'retired' mode > > > though, and build only the binaries for PostgreSQL itself. > > > > But would that give people who have previously used the full installer > > an upgrade path (that doesn't break everything around it)? > > Yes - they'd just unpack the archive over their install directory. Might > screw up the permissions though, and wouldn't include the docs :-( We'd > certainly need to try it out thoroughly first...
I am pretty amazed people are considering shortening the release cycle for our most popular platform. As it is a packaging issue, if some people don't want to continue providing updates, I can start asking in the community for someone else to do it. If the port is broken, and people must upgrade, I can see the reason for not releasing updates, but if it is a question of time committment, I oppose such cutbacks. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match