| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing warnings in back branches? |
| Date: | 2015-12-15 14:09:39 |
| Message-ID: | 527.1450188579@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:
> I think that's an ok one-off policy. But looking back it was pretty much
> always the case that the release -3 or so started to look pretty
> horrible, warning wise.
I think that's a condition of life. The compilers are moving targets,
no matter that they allegedly implement standards. We endeavor to keep
HEAD able to compile warning-free on recent compilers, but I don't think
we can make such a promise for back branches. This thread offers a great
example of why not: the changes required would sometimes be too invasive
to be justifiable.
In the end, if you're building an old branch, you should be doing it with
old tools.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2015-12-15 14:17:34 | Re: Fixing warnings in back branches? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-15 14:01:52 | Re: parallel joins, and better parallel explain |