Am Tuesday, 29. July 2008 schrieb Greg Sabino Mullane: > > Why would anyone running PostgreSQL 8.1 in production upgrade their > > stable server to Python 2.5, and remove Python 2.4 in the process? > > Because the keep their operating system up to date, and because we still > do not have any sort of in-place upgrade.
And neither does Python. Someone taking the step from Python 2.4 to 2.5 might as well do a major upgrade of PostgreSQL as well. > > What is the use case, except "build farm maintainers can't keep their > > environments stable"? > > What's not stable about having Python 2.5? I mean "stable" to mean "does not change (unnecessarily)". When PostgreSQL 8.1 was released, Python 2.5 was not yet out. So whoever was installing PostgreSQL 8.1 must have done it on a system that had Python 2.4. Why not keep that? In fact, someone upgrading such a system would have to *rebuild* PostgreSQL. Who does that on a production system? > The buildfarm is meant to test many different combinations of > factors that may or may not be seen in the field, and in this case it is > doing that job admirably. Yes indeed. The test results say: This combination doesn't work; use some of these other alternatives. Why not leave it at that? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
