From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PL/php in pg_pltemplate |
Date: | 2005-11-25 17:14:24 |
Message-ID: | 23425.1132938864@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> The counterargument has been that a PostgreSQL major version upgrade
> would typically require a version upgrade of all language handlers. In
> my experience of maintaining and observing the maintenance of binary
> packages for PostgreSQL and languages, this is decidedly false, at
> least in the general case.
Really? I'd argue the opposite. See also the recent proposal to
*force* recompilation of all loadable shared libraries for every
major PG version, by means of embedding a version number in them.
If you think that would be a bad idea you'd better weigh in on that
thread pretty soon ...
> The PL/PHP package is a pretty obvious case where things can go wrong,
> especially if you have tight dependencies. You may decide that the
> next version of PL/PHP will require PHP 5.2.0. You put that in the
> pltemplate for PostgreSQL 8.2.
Hm? Where in pltemplate is there any knowledge of PHP versions?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-25 17:20:23 | Re: BUG #2052: Federal Agency Tech Hub Refuses to Accept |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-11-25 17:04:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Should libedit be preferred to libreadline? |