> Tom Lane wrote: >> Please note also that Red Hat has been shipping PG 8.4 for RHEL5 for >> awhile --- it's the postgresql84-* package set. I would hope CentOS >> has copied that by now. >> > > They have, as of CentOS's 5.5 back in May, and I keep forgetting its > there. I'm not sure whether I like the trade-offs that come from using > that packaging in every case yet though. The dependency issues with > httpd are particularly weird: > http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS5.5 (last item in > "Known Issues"). I personally would rather just replace the system > database with the newer version directly as the PGDG yums do, but you're > right that some might prefer to use the system one instead. I went with the upstream postgresql RPMs. They provided a compat package for CentOS stuff that links against older client libs, so it works out nicely. The reason I went with CentOS for server when I first started my project was because I wanted a system that had long term vendor maintenance and kept things stable rather than bleeding edge, a system that required minimal package maintenance on my part. The postgresql yum repo allows that. Since PostgreSQL has a 5 year commitment to support, even though it isn't vendor packaging I can pretty much guarantee that I'll have upgraded the server before that time limit expires, and even if they don't provide RPMs for that long, I can maintain the src.rpm for 8.4 series myself if I need to (which I hope I don't). The library version was not the issue with my php connection problem, though building against newer client libs was probably a good idea anyway. Still looking at it (yes I checked and double checked pg_hba.conf), I'll figure it out. ----- Michael A. Peters http://www.shastaherps.org/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
