On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > cb <cb@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >>> Make sure you're not in the line of fire when (not if) that version >>> eats your data. Particularly on Windows, insisting on not >>> upgrading that version is unbelievably, irresponsibly stupid. >>> There are a *large* number of known bugs. >> >> >> I hear ya, and have agreed with you for a long while. There is a >> fairly regular and constant fight in house over the issue of >> upgrading. We get hit on a regular basis with problems that as far >> as I know are bugs that have been fixed (transaction log rename >> crashes that take down PG, as well as queries just vanishing into >> the aether at times of heavy load resulting in hung threads in our >> Tomcat front end as it waits for something to come back that has >> disappeared). > > If you could track down some unmodified 1971 Ford Pintos, you could > give them some perspective by having them drive those until they > upgrade. And they all get 1993 era Pentium 60s with 32 Megs of RAM running windows 3.11 for workgroups and using the trumpet TCP stack. Upgrades, who needs 'em?! -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
