From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: upcoming API changes for LLVM 12 |
Date: | 2020-10-16 14:22:57 |
Message-ID: | 4139733.1602858177@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2020-10-16 02:45:51 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> 2) When do we want to add LLVM 12 support? PG will soon stop compiling
>>> against LLVM 12, which will be released in about 6 months. I worked
>>> with Lang to make most of the breaking changes in a branch (to be
>>> merged in the next few days), but it's possible that there will be a
>>> few smaller changes.
>> hmm, how regular are LLVM releases? I mean, what if pg14 ends up being
>> released sooner than LLVM12 – would there be a problem?
> Pretty unlikely - they're half yearly releases, and come out on a
> somewhat regular schedule. They've moved a few weeks but not more. And
> even if they did - having a few #ifdefs for LLVM 12 would be ok anyway.
Yeah. As long as we're not breaking the ability to build against older
LLVM, I can't see a reason not to apply and back-patch these changes.
We usually want all supported PG versions to build against newer tool
chains, and this seems to fall into that category.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-10-16 14:45:41 | Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-10-16 13:56:30 | Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32 |