Tom Lane wrote: > shadrack <shadkeene@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> My basic question is...are php4 and postgresql 8.3 compatible? >> I'm running Linux Redhat 3.4.6, php4.3.9, and postgresql 8.3. I know, >> some of those versions are old...its government, and I unfortunately >> don't have control over the version. > > Er ... Red Hat *what*? I don't think they ever used such a version > number. If they did it was a very long time ago (for calibration, > they were just about to release RHL 7.3 when I joined the company, > in 2001). You could probably scare the powers-that-be into letting > you update the thing just on the grounds of it still being full of > Y2K bugs. Well, the first Red Hat Linux I'm used was 4.1 (I still remember the code name, Vanderbilt). And it was '97 I think. So if you're *really* thinking of RHL 3 something, wikipedia says about early RH revision history: # 1.0 (Mother's Day), November 3, 1994 (Linux 1.2.8) # 1.1 (Mother's Day+0.1), August 1, 1995 (Linux 1.2.11) # 2.0, September 20, 1995 (Linux 1.2.13-2) # 2.1, November 23, 1995 (Linux 1.2.13) # 3.0.3 (Picasso), May 1, 1996 - first release supporting DEC Alpha # 4.0 (Colgate), October 3, 1996 (Linux 2.0.18) - first release supporting SPARC # 4.1 (Vanderbilt), February 3, 1997 (Linux 2.0.27) which reminds me, I've used Colgate a bit too. Back in those years I've used also Postres95 (but on Slackware I suspect). Anyway, if I'm not mistaken, the birth of PostgreSQL proper (6.0 I think) was at that time, '96. The OP must refer to RHEL 3 something, it can't be RHL 3. He'd have a tyrannosaur in his backyard and he's crying for help because he's got a broken leg. We go "send pictures!". Quite seriously I'd really like to see a picture of a running RHL 3 still in production. Maybe even at RH won't mind one. Too bad uptime wouldn't show more than 497 days... .TM. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
