Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Date: 2017-07-28 21:24:06
Message-ID: 4039.1501277046@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 07/27/2017 11:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I wonder if it'd be worth getting the buildfarm
>>> to log the output of "perl -V" so we could get a clearer picture
>>> of what's being tested.

> Looks like this, bit it's rather tedious. I think I might back it out. I
> guess I could also write it to a log file, if we really think we need it.
> <https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=crake&dt=2017-07-28%2018%3A37%3A19>

Yeah, that's awfully verbose :-(. I suspect most vendors wouldn't bother
with enumerating quite so many patches.

I fixed configure so that it will report what it saw in $Config{ccflags};
that may be sufficient.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-07-28 21:25:07 Re: Adding support for Default partition in partitioning
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-07-28 21:15:37 Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows