On 19/10/17 10:34, Don Seiler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Vik Fearing
mailto:vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
On 10/18/2017 08:17 PM, Don Seiler wrote:
> I disagree with this. It isn't my company's business to test the
> Postgres software in development, as much as
On 18 October 2017 at 17:17, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 10/18/2017 08:17 PM, Don Seiler wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Vik Fearing
>> mailto:vik.fear...@2ndquadrant.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/18/2017 05:57 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
>> >
>> > I support the policy of using cautio
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Don Seiler wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Vik Fearing
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/18/2017 08:17 PM, Don Seiler wrote:
>>
>> > 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
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Vik Fearing
wrote:
> On 10/18/2017 08:17 PM, Don Seiler wrote:
>
> > 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
On 10/18/2017 08:17 PM, Don Seiler wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Vik Fearing
> mailto:vik.fear...@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 t
On 10/18/2017 11:17 AM, Don Seiler wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Vik Fearing
mailto:vik.fear...@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 a
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
>
> I am not sure why this is even a question. There are plenty of businesses
> that can risk the deployment of a .0 release but there are also *MANY THAT
> CAN NOT*. The proper way to do this is to have a staging server running the
> .0 relea
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Vik Fearing
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 Postgre
On 10/18/2017 05:57 PM, Melvin Davidson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:46 AM, David G. Johnston
> mailto:david.g.johns...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The contributors do an excellent job but the reality of this
> community is that a critical mass of people do not start seriously
> t
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake
wrote:
> On 10/18/2017 08:49 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On 10/18/2017 10:16 AM, Igal @ 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,
On 10/18/2017 08:49 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/18/2017 10:16 AM, Igal @ 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
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 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
On 10/18/2017 10:16 AM, Igal @ 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
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Igal @ 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 p
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 pronou
On 18/10/2017 17:34, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote:
On 10/18/2017 6:24 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/17/2017 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Ron Johnson writes:
Where can I look to see (roughly) how much more RAM/CPU/disk needed when
moving from 8.4 and 9.2?
It's entirely possible you'll need *less*, as y
On 10/18/2017 09:34 AM, Igal @ Lucee.org wrote:
On 10/18/2017 6:24 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/17/2017 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Ron Johnson writes:
Where can I look to see (roughly) how much more RAM/CPU/disk needed when
moving from 8.4 and 9.2?
It's entirely possible you'll need *less*, a
On 10/18/2017 6:24 AM, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 10/17/2017 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Ron Johnson writes:
Where can I look to see (roughly) how much more RAM/CPU/disk needed
when
moving from 8.4 and 9.2?
It's entirely possible you'll need *less*, as you'll be absorbing the
benefit of several yea
On 10/17/2017 11:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Ron Johnson writes:
Where can I look to see (roughly) how much more RAM/CPU/disk needed when
moving from 8.4 and 9.2?
It's entirely possible you'll need *less*, as you'll be absorbing the
benefit of several years' worth of performance improvements. But
Ron Johnson writes:
> Where can I look to see (roughly) how much more RAM/CPU/disk needed when
> moving from 8.4 and 9.2?
It's entirely possible you'll need *less*, as you'll be absorbing the
benefit of several years' worth of performance improvements. But this
is such a workload-dependent thin
20 matches
Mail list logo
