On 10/18/2017 08:17 PM, Don Seiler wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Vik Fearing > <vik.fearing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:vik.fearing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> 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 PostgreSQL 10 was only released this > > month is critical and therefore is should not be a production server. It > > should be used as development, or QA, at best. > > No, the Betas and RC should have been used in development and QA. > > > 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 it for you! Great attitude. > We're testing our own applications and > processes, and this should be done with a "stable" product, more or > less. So I'd only ever think to have them use an official release versus > a beta or release candidate. And how do you think the product becomes stable? By magic? > That said, count me in the same camp with the "Never .0" folks. Yes, I gathered that. > I'm planning a mass upgrade to 9.6 soon as well and the question was raised > as to whether or not to go right to 10.0, and I quickly put that down. Right, because when you say "official release versus a beta or release candidate", you don't actually mean it. -- Vik Fearing +33 6 46 75 15 36 http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
