From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
Date: | 2021-10-24 21:52:00 |
Message-ID: | 202110242152.xea2wxnkwqxd@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2021-Oct-24, Robert Haas wrote:
> You know, one thing we could think about doing is patching some of the
> older branches to make them compile on modern machines. That would not
> only be potentially useful for people who are upgrading from ancient
> versions, but also for hackers trying to do research on the origin of
> bugs or performance problems, and also for people who are trying to
> maintain some kind of backward compatibility or other and want to test
> against old versions.
I think it is worth *some* effort, at least as far back as we want to
claim that we maintain pg_dump and/or psql compatibility, assuming it is
not too onerous. For instance, I wouldn't want to clutter buildfarm or
CI dashboards with testing these branches, unless it is well isolated
from regular ones; we shouldn't commit anything that's too invasive; and
we shouldn't make any claims about supportability of these abandoned
branches.
As an example, I did backpatch one such fix to 8.3 (just over a year)
and 8.2 (four years) after they had closed -- see d13f41d21538 and
105f3ef492ab.
--
Álvaro Herrera 39°49'30"S 73°17'W — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Puedes vivir sólo una vez, pero si lo haces bien, una vez es suficiente"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Justin Pryzby | 2021-10-24 22:03:37 | Re: Assorted improvements in pg_dump |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-24 21:46:17 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |