Speaking of upgrades... (was Re: Predicted ...)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/26/07 17:28, Shane Ambler wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>> I spend some time googling this and searching the Postgresql.org site,
>> but
>> I'm either not good enough with the search strings, or it's not to be
>> found.
>>
>> I'm trying to plan upgrades so that we don't upgrade needlessly, but also
>> don't get caught using stuff that nobody's supporting any more.
>> The FreeBSD project keeps this schedule:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/security/#adv
>> which is _really_ nice when talking to managers and similar people about
>> when upgrades need to be scheduled.
>>
>> Does the PostgreSQL project have any similar policy about EoLs? Even
>> just
>> a simple statement like, "it is our goal to support major branches for 2
>> years after release" or some such?
>>
>
> There is no set time frame planned that I know of.
>
> It is more a matter of users that keep the old versions alive. Some with
> large datasets on busy servers that can't allocate enough downtime to
> upgrade tend to be keeping the older versions running.

How much does the on-disk structure of *existing* tables and indexes
change between x.y versions?

Between, for example, 8.0 and 8.2?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFupB8S9HxQb37XmcRArvWAKCwTj6kDG6+rAa4vZ30PEQUkDHy5ACg7CZf
8PaPJuy6gYBuCo5JNdxgdBQ=
=olUx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----