[arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4

Don deJuan donjuansjiz at gmail.com
Thu Jan 29 16:40:52 UTC 2015

On 01/29/2015 05:51 AM, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
> On 01/29/2015 02:24 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net> wrote:
>>> On 01/29/2015 01:00 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's
>>>>> execution upon specific output.
>>> (Doesn't scale to more than one user since nobody else is going to be
>>> using that script.)
>>>>> Then you could have loud warning signals, send emails that get you
>>>>> fired and an automatic backup to the NSA, or NAS, as you like.
>>>> To correct myself: It's silly to assume the package that breaks your
>>>> setup is already on that watchlist. There's only one thing you can do:
>>>> make sure you have the time to clean up after your update.
>>> Uh, there's a difference between
>>>   a) We *know* that upgrade X will break your system and/or
>>>      require manual intervention.
>>> and
>>>   b) We have no specific knowledge that upgrade X will
>>>   break your system and/or require manual intervention.
>> So, my script doesn't scale and your notion of 'we' does?
>> How comes?
> I think we may have a language barrier -- I have no idea what you're
> getting at.
> I said "doesn't scale up to more than one *user*". "We" = package/pacman
> owners/developers -- this *does* scale to all the users of Arch Linux.
> Was this not clear?
> I'm not saying the developers/packagers have infinite reasources, I was
> pointing out that it might make sense and be worth the effort to
> implement something (process/pacman support/whatever) which would scale
> to all the users of Arch Linux and could hopefully be specified
> in-package once and for all for known cases where upgrades WILL break
> things.
>From someone who runs Arch in prod on a ton of servers. It was the
admins fault. Not arch's not pacman's and not PGSQL's it was the admin.

Running a rolling release in prod requires the ability to pay attention
to every detail fully for every action you make.

Be accountable for your own mistake. This thread is a joke at this
point. The OP messed up by nothing other than his own lack of admining a
prod box productively and effectively. This situation would have been
avoided if you were on top of your prod box and not just blindly running
pacman -Syu. And yes I actually had 0 issues with this update cause I
saw it in the queue to install and took the needed steps to avoid the
OP's exact situation. Have a screwed up on one of these sure and was
never anything more than my own mistake. Whatever happened to self
accountability? Know the software you run, dont let the software run you.

More information about the arch-general mailing list