On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 22:29 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
>> There appears to be some confusion here. We're not recommending a
>> version of PostgreSQL that end-users should use; we're nominating the
>> minimum possible version that pass
I think Redhat added a postgresql-server84 package in RHEL5.5 but
that's in addition to regular postgresql-server (8.1) package, not
instead of it. Postgres 8.1 is the standard version on RHEL5.x. Since
RHEL6 is based on Fedora12, I believe it will use Postgres 8.4.
On Jun 10, 8:23 am, Adam Nelso
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 22:29 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> There appears to be some confusion here. We're not recommending a
> version of PostgreSQL that end-users should use; we're nominating the
> minimum possible version that passes Django's test suite. PostgreSQL
> 7.4 may be bad for all
I agree with Simon, Jerome et al.
Django 1.3 should feel free to go to 8.3 as a minimum Postgres if
there are db backend changes that could take advantage of those
versions' capabilities.
Ubuntu Hardy (the previous LTS) uses Postgres 8.3 and RHEL 5.5 uses
8.4.
It really seems to me that the Djan
This is not a "good" thing, in my opinion. There are a lot of features
in postgres 8.0, 8.1 and 8.2 which we *should* make available to end
users (and even enforce in some cases).
Dropping support for old dependencies is a very good thing and hell
knows how much fire this sort of thing started in
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:21 PM, si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
>
> On Jun 10, 6:53 am, Paul McMillan wrote:
>> +1 for option 2.
>>
>> Changing 1.2 behavior now seems like a bad idea, and Jacob's arguments
>> are good.
>
> Jacob's arguments are good; I would suggest Django goes further still.
>
> P
On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 13:41 +0400, reg...@messir.net wrote:
> For old postgress we have old django. So, do not hesitate kicking off
> old code. Even 8.2 version is very-very old so it's okay to depend on
> 8.2+.
>
> > While we support PostgreSQL, our documentation doesn't actually
> > specify a mi
On Jun 10, 6:53 am, Paul McMillan wrote:
> +1 for option 2.
>
> Changing 1.2 behavior now seems like a bad idea, and Jacob's arguments
> are good.
Jacob's arguments are good; I would suggest Django goes further still.
PostgreSQL...
7.4 and 8.0 are slated for de-support as soon as 9.0 is release
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
> wrote:
>> PostgreSQL 7.4 was released in November 2005, and will be end-of-lifed
>> (along with PostgreSQL 8.0) in July this year. Our usual yardstick of
>> slow updates, RHEL4, shipp
For old postgress we have old django. So, do not hesitate kicking off
old code. Even 8.2 version is very-very old so it's okay to depend on
8.2+.
> While we support PostgreSQL, our documentation doesn't actually
> specify a minimum supported version. We have a couple of features that
> are no-ops
+1 for option 2.
Changing 1.2 behavior now seems like a bad idea, and Jacob's arguments
are good.
-Paul
On Jun 9, 10:22 am, Felipe Prenholato wrote:
> +1 for options 1 and 2.
>
> I think that change for 1.2.x is to close and we probably have some users
> that not want this change now. Set Postg
+1 for options 1 and 2.
I think that change for 1.2.x is to close and we probably have some users
that not want this change now. Set Postgres 8.0 to 1.3 give this users time
to move.
And, as Jacob said, do retroative changes from this category now isn't a
good idea.
2010/6/9 Jacob Kaplan-Moss
> If we'd thought of it, dropping 7.4 support in 1.2 would have been the
> right thing to do. However, retroactively doing so now would be abuse
> of the time machine privileges and I'd like to avoid being grounded.
> #1's not worth the effort, so that just leaves #2, which sounds about
> right to
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> PostgreSQL 7.4 was released in November 2005, and will be end-of-lifed
> (along with PostgreSQL 8.0) in July this year. Our usual yardstick of
> slow updates, RHEL4, shipped with PostgreSQL 7.4. RHEL5 shipped with
> PostgreSQL 8.1.
And
I have already given some of my thoughts on django-users and on the
ticket for 8901... Andrew Godwin's reasoning above feels sound to me,
so considering that and that 1.1 would still work for postgres 7.4
users (plus my desire to see the bug in 8901 fixed sooner rather than
later as it does affect
+1 on option 3.
Oldest postgresql we have is 8.2.
I pity the fool who didn't upgrade !
On Jun 9, 2:38 pm, Antoni Aloy wrote:
> +1 on Drop 7.4 PostgreSQL support. Postgressql 8.x series has lots of
> performance and utility features and it would be a pity to remain in
> 7.4.
>
> --
> Antoni Aloy
+1 on Drop 7.4 PostgreSQL support. Postgressql 8.x series has lots of
performance and utility features and it would be a pity to remain in
7.4.
--
Antoni Aloy López
Blog: http://trespams.com
Site: http://apsl.net
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Dja
On 09/06/2010 12:59, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
Hi all,
While we support PostgreSQL, our documentation doesn't actually
specify a minimum supported version. We have a couple of features that
are no-ops for versions prior to 8.2 (savepoints and database
autocommit), but we don't actually document
Hi all,
While we support PostgreSQL, our documentation doesn't actually
specify a minimum supported version. We have a couple of features that
are no-ops for versions prior to 8.2 (savepoints and database
autocommit), but we don't actually document a minimum required
version.
We have a specified
19 matches
Mail list logo
