[arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4

[Bardur Arantsson]

On 01/29/2015 05:40 PM, Don deJuan wrote:
> 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.

You might try putting yourself in others' shoes when evaluating their
opinions.

Not everybody is running Arch in "prod on a ton of servers". Some Arch
users are just plain desktop users, or (probably slightly more likely)
developers of some type or other.

Also, if you're running Arch on a ton of servers, I take it that this is
your day job? If so, then it *is* your responsibility to be very sure
what you're doing and using canary servers, etc. to make sure nothing
gets screwed up on an upgrade. Plus you hopefully get *paid* to do this.
You probably also have automation tools to help you do this. This may or
may not be typical for users of Arch Linux -- I honestly have no idea.

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

Certainly, but people make mistakes (or are sometimes just plain
non-perfect and non-attentive due to routine) and an extra warning
pre-upgrade might be enough to avoid some significant percentage of
those mistakes.

> 
> 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?

I think the OP actually admitted that he made a mistake?

> Know the software you run, dont let the software run you.

AFAICT, blaming the user for lack of user-friendliness is exactly
"let[ting] the software run you".

*Shrugs*... As it is this thread has stopped being constructive, so I'm out.