Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?
Date: 2024-04-15 23:42:38
Message-ID: 1018763.1713224558@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 07:14:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I could switch the animal to use -Wno-deprecated-declarations in the
>> back branches, but I'd rather not. I think the right answer is to
>> back-patch Michael's 65c5864d7 (xml2: Replace deprecated routines with
>> recommended ones). We speculated about that at the time (see e.g.,
>> 400928b83) but didn't pull the trigger. I think 65c5864d7 has now
>> baked long enough that it'd be safe to back-patch.

> Would you prefer if I do it?

Please, if you have the time.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2024-04-15 23:53:48 Re: Differential code coverage between 16 and HEAD
Previous Message Jeff Davis 2024-04-15 23:40:23 [18] clarify the difference between pg_wchar, wchar_t, and Unicode code points