Re: What about Perl autodie?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: What about Perl autodie?
Date: 2024-02-08 07:01:00
Message-ID: 3f92e258-7c20-4e0a-8805-bfbafb63a5f3@eisentraut.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08.02.24 07:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 11:52 PM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> No drawbacks. I've been using it heavily for many, many years. Came out in 5.10.1,
>>> which should be available everywhere at this point (2009 was the year of release)
>
>> We moved our minimum to 5.14 fairly recently, so we're good on that point.
>
> Yeah, but only recently. I'm a little worried about the value of this
> change relative to the amount of code churn involved, and more to the
> point I worry about the risk of future back-patches injecting bad code
> into back branches that don't use autodie.
>
> (Back-patching the use of autodie doesn't seem feasible, since before
> v16 we supported perl 5.8.something.)

Yeah, good points. I suppose we could start using it for completely new
scripts.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-02-08 07:05:39 Re: confusing / inefficient "need_transcoding" handling in copy
Previous Message Peter Smith 2024-02-08 06:37:35 Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby