On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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, 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 pronounce ;) >> >> >> No .0 is going into production... >> > > 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 release that gets beaten on by the application for a few months and > reports anything back to the community they find. In a past job I would routinely setup a slony slave running the new version to check to make sure the new version wouldn't choke on the data in the master etc, then start using it as a read slave after a few months to make sure the app got along with it as a read only source, then finally look at promoting it to master, with the option to unpromote it should things explode. Minimal downtime for upgrades AND a path back to the old version quickly if needed. All while having setup dev and stage servers ahead of time to get beaten on of course. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
