| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
| Date: | 2021-10-25 15:09:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobzrGnGr9PYF-hYbDuayQg_eGq=JdgddqDp7d+4uzfm=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Actually, I think we do. If I want to test against 7.4, ISTM I want
> to test against the last released 7.4 version, not something with
> arbitrary later changes. Otherwise, what exactly is the point?
1. You're free to check out any commit you like.
2. Nothing I said can reasonably be confused with "let's allow
arbitrary later changes."
> Uh, don't we have that already? I know you can configure a buildfarm
> animal to force a run at least every-so-often, but it's not required,
> and I don't think it's even the default.
Oh, OK. I wonder how that plays with the buildfarm status page's
desire to drop old results that are more than 30 days old. I guess
you'd just need to force a run at least every 28 days or something.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-10-25 15:25:00 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-10-25 15:05:22 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |