Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions

On 2021-Oct-25, Tom Lane wrote:

> Roughly speaking, I think the policy should be "no feature bug fixes,
> not even security fixes, for EOL'd branches; only fixes that are
> minimally necessary to make it build on newer platforms". And
> I want to have a sunset provision even for that. Fixing every branch
> forevermore doesn't scale.

Agreed. I think dropping such support at the same time we drop
psql/pg_dump support is a decent answer to that. That meets the stated
purpose of being able to test such support, and also it moves forward
according to subjective choice per development needs.

> Also, I concur with Andrew's point that we'd really have to have
> buildfarm support. However, this might not be as bad as it seems.
> In principle we might just need to add resurrected branches back to
> the branches_to_build list.

Well, we would add them to *some* list, but not to the one used by stock
BF members -- not only because of the diskspace issue but also because
of the time to build. I suggest that we should have a separate
list-of-branches file that would only be used by BF members especially
configured to do so; and hopefully we won't allow more than a handful
animals to do that but rather a well-chosen subset, and also maybe allow
only GCC rather than try to support other compilers. (There's no need
to ensure compilability on any Windows platform, for example.)

--
Álvaro Herrera Valdivia, Chile — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Ed is the standard text editor."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.emacs/msg/8d94ddab6a9b0ad3