←back to thread

264 points davidgomes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.233s | source
Show context
elric ◴[] No.41876822[source]
Lots of dogmatism in this discussion, it seems. A couple of things:

1. Most psql deployments are not exposed to the interwebz, they are typically only accessible to the applications that need them by virtue of network setup (firewalls etc). This limits the attack vector to whatever the application does. Good.

2. Distro vendors (RHEL et al) often stick to major psql release for the lifecycle of the OS version. If the OS lives longer than the psql major version, they take on the responsability of backporting critical security issues.

3. While upgrades aren't hard, they're not easy either.

4. Psql is pretty much feature complete for many workloads, and pretty stable in general. For many people, there is little need to chase the latest major version.

replies(7): >>41876901 #>>41877104 #>>41877174 #>>41877411 #>>41877438 #>>41878003 #>>41879089 #
atoav ◴[] No.41877104[source]
Also:

5. If your IT department is spread thin already and that old version is running fine, the incentive to potentially create more work for yourself is not gigantic.

replies(1): >>41877167 #
Dalewyn ◴[] No.41877167[source]
One of the first laws of the universe that a good engineer learns is: Do not fix what is not broken.

And no, being old is not broken.

replies(9): >>41877567 #>>41877619 #>>41877848 #>>41877998 #>>41878067 #>>41878190 #>>41879176 #>>41880524 #>>41880526 #
WJW ◴[] No.41878067[source]
The entire field of maintenance engineering would like a word. Over longer periods of time it's vastly cheaper to regularly fix things even before they break, and software is no exception.

Amongst other reasons:

- Performing regular upgrades is an easy and cheap way to maintain a healthy knowledge base about the system. It's always easier to fix a system that is well understood than a black box which nobody has touched in 20 years. Upgrading regularly also leads to people being more comfortable with the upgrade process and it is likely to become a "regular thing" with checklists and other process improvements that make maintenance safer and more reliable.

- Doing preemptive maintenance means YOU get to choose when the system is unavailable and then you can plan accordingly, perhaps by planning it during a period with low usage or even arranging for a redundant system to take up the load. The alternative is leaving it up to chance when a system will fail, and that's frequently at high-load moments when you can least afford it.

- As a corollary to the previous point: a team which is in control of its systems can have more predictable output of feature work, since there will be fewer "unexpected" events.

Not maintaining your systems is only cheaper in the long run if you don't count the engineering time required to fix things when they break or need to be replaced. Ounce of prevention vs pound of cure and all that.

replies(4): >>41878215 #>>41879543 #>>41879999 #>>41881886 #
1. diffeomorphism ◴[] No.41879999[source]
Maintenance engineering is in full agreement with that. You are maintaining the old version, backporting fixes etc. instead of tearing down the whole thing and replacing it with new shiny all the time.