From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm |
Date: | 2008-07-29 17:23:47 |
Message-ID: | 488F5223.1020505@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>
>> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>>
>>> I really don't understand Peter's objection here. This thread has
>>> already consumed more person-time than I spent on applying the
>>> back-patch.
>>>
>
>
>> Well I certainly wouldn't expect us to feel obligated to spend much effort
>> making 8.1 work with a new Redhat release, for example. We would just say 8.1
>> is only supported on those systems it was supported on when it was released.
>>
>
> Well, it would certainly depend on how much effort was involved to make
> it work. In this case, I drew the line at messing with autoconf ;-) ...
> otherwise I might've tried to fix 7.4 as well.
>
>
>
I think your action has been entirely appropriate.
Just to show you how wrong Peter's objection is - yesterday I found
myself having to build 7.1 so I could recover some data for a client. So
we occasionally need to build long, long after the release.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-07-29 18:01:41 | Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution? |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2008-07-29 17:10:24 | Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql |