On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Maybe I'm some crazy, radical DBA, but I've never had a version of > >> pgsql get EOLed out from underneath me. > > Just for fun, I did a bit of digging in the release notes > http://developer.postgresql.org/pgdocs/postgres/release.html > and came up with this table about PG major releases and their > follow-on bug fix/minor releases: > > Version Release date # updates Days till final update Days till next major > > 6.0 1997-01-29 0 0 130 > 6.1 1997-06-08 1 44 116 > 6.2 1997-10-02 1 15 150 > 6.3 1998-03-01 2 37 243 > 6.4 1998-10-30 2 51 222 > 6.5 1999-06-09 3 126 334 > 7.0 2000-05-08 3 187 340 > 7.1 2001-04-13 3 124 297 > 7.2 2002-02-04 8 1190 296 > 7.3 2002-11-27 21 1867 355 > 7.4 2003-11-17 19+ ? 429 > 8.0 2005-01-19 15+ ? 293 > 8.1 2005-11-08 11+ ? 392 > 8.2 2006-12-05 7+ ? 426 > 8.3 2008-02-04 1+ ? ? > > It's pretty clear that there was a sea-change around 7.2/7.3 --- > before that, nobody thought that PG releases were anything that > might be long-lived. And there's nothing in this table that > suggests we've really settled on a new lifespan ... other than that > we're still putting out new majors at a constant rate, and the community > hasn't got the resources or interest to maintain an ever-increasing > number of back branches. > > regards, tom lane Not really Postgres's problem, but for whatever its worth if I do the following on Debian stable: $apt-get install postgresql I get 7.4 . When I install Debian I generally expect the software to be supported for a long time. Perhaps it might make sense to declare it dead except for security issues? -- Rob Wultsch wultsch@xxxxxxxxx wultsch (aim)
