Re: What about Perl autodie?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: What about Perl autodie?
Date: 2024-02-08 06:03:23
Message-ID: 898467.1707372203@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ashutosh Bapat 2024-02-08 06:04:47 Re: Fix propagation of persistence to sequences in ALTER TABLE / ADD COLUMN
Previous Message Sutou Kouhei 2024-02-08 06:03:08 Re: meson: catalog/syscache_ids.h isn't installed