| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris <rfusca(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2 |
| Date: | 2010-06-28 22:59:41 |
| Message-ID: | 201006282259.o5SMxfY03093@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>> You could argue it either way. The number of beta testers with
> >>> plpython3 installations is probably very small, so I'm kinda leaning to
> >>> just changing the code without a catversion bump. OTOH, if we want to
> >>> encourage testing of pg_upgrade ...
> >>
> >> FWIW, the last bump has led to a lot of testing of pgupgrade.
>
> > And fixes, that will appear in 9.0 beta3. :-) Most fixes were related
> > to platform compile portability.
>
> Well, if you think that pg_upgrade has changed materially since beta2,
> that would be a good argument for getting some fresh testing for it,
> which in turn argues for doing the catversion bump here.
Attached are the changes since beta2; they are pretty minor. The good
news is I think all reporters eventually got it working. I assume using
it for beta3 would allow it work even better, and once you have use it
once, using it again is simple.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ None of us is going to be here forever. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| unknown_filename | text/plain | 1.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2010-06-28 23:52:58 | Re: Admission Control |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-28 22:54:16 | Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2 |