From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Upgrading rant. |
Date: | 2003-01-06 04:41:30 |
Message-ID: | 200301052341.30518.lamar.owen@wgcr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday 05 January 2003 23:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > It is very possible that the supporting libc shared libraries
> > will be removed by the OS upgrade -- the old binaries may not even run
> > when it is critical that they do run.
> Urgh, that's a mess.
Yah, it is a mess. I've been playing in that mudpit for three years....
> > If I can get older versions building again on newer systems, that will
> > help buy some breathing room from my point of view.
> Worst-case, we could include a back-rev postmaster binary in new
> distributions.
While I have in the past suggested this, I'm not happy with the idea, even
though it may be the best short-term solution.
> However, that still requires us to keep the back revs
> buildable on newer OS releases, which evidently is less than trivial
> in the Linux world :-(
That is the wonderful result of having so many rapidly developing
applications, including our own. We have, I'm sure, given a few ulcers to
Linux distributors too.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sailesh Krishnamurthy | 2003-01-06 04:45:48 | Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-06 04:26:37 | Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c |