On 03/11/2016 04:27 AM, Harish Kumar Gudur (DATA GLOVE INCORPORATED DBA
TR) wrote:
*Hi Team,*
We are planning to migrate few Vendor based applications from Windows
Server 2003 to the latest server Operating System Windows Server
2012/2008. Before migration we would like to do the assessment of t
> "Harish Kumar Gudur (DATA GLOVE INCORPORATED DBA TR)"
> hat am 11. März 2016 um 13:27 geschrieben:
>
>
> Hi Team,
> We are planning to migrate few Vendor based applications from Windows Server
> 2003 to the latest server Operating System Windows Server 2012/2008. Before
> migration we would
Hi Team,
We are planning to migrate few Vendor based applications from Windows Server
2003 to the latest server Operating System Windows Server 2012/2008. Before
migration we would like to do the assessment of the application and check the
supportability.
We are performing the assessment for:
Ap
8.0.3
On 31.08.2005 10:43, philip johnson wrote:
What version would you recommend to use for a new installation: 8.0.x or
7.4.x
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
philip johnson wrote:
What version would you recommend to use for a new installation: 8.0.x or
7.4.x
8.0.x - always go for the most recent stable series unless you need to
maintain backwards compatibility.
If you are just entering development, it might be worth looking at 8.1
which has just
What version would you recommend to use for a new installation: 8.0.x or
7.4.x
TIA
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
Lonni J Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:41:11 -0500, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not what's going on there, I'd appreciate hearing anyone who might have
>> some insights...
> Its called up2date.
or even more specifically, day-zero security errata. The CD
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:41:11 -0500, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
FYI, Seems there might be some confusion on the part of Red Hat.
Checking the 4.0 channel on the Red Hat Network for the version of
Postgresql that comes on 4.0 I see:
postgresql-7.4.7-2.RHEL4.1
Whereas
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:41:11 -0500, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI, Seems there might be some confusion on the part of Red Hat.
> Checking the 4.0 channel on the Red Hat Network for the version of
> Postgresql that comes on 4.0 I see:
>
> postgresql-7.4.7-2.RHEL4.1
>
> Whereas, on the
FYI, Seems there might be some confusion on the part of Red Hat.
Checking the 4.0 channel on the Red Hat Network for the version of
Postgresql that comes on 4.0 I see:
postgresql-7.4.7-2.RHEL4.1
Whereas, on the iso I downloaded I find:
postgresql-7.4.6-1.RHEL4.2
Not what's going on there, I'd a
10 matches
Mail list logo
