Re: TAP backpatching policy

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: TAP backpatching policy
Date: 2017-05-31 05:20:14
Message-ID: CAOuzzgoahiYtSON=BS0Frq5kZdk78tZF_opUJ=u9Pn2nAv=AAg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom,

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 01:16 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> > In the end, the experiences I've had with pg_dump of late and trying to
> > ensure that pg_dump 9.6 is able to work all the way back to *7.0*, makes
> > me think that this notion of putting the one-and-only real test-suite we
> > have into the core repo almost laughable.
>
> um... why are you trying to do that? We moved the goalposts last fall:
>
> Author: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> Branch: master [64f3524e2] 2016-10-12 12:20:02 -0400
>
> Remove pg_dump/pg_dumpall support for dumping from pre-8.0 servers.

Right... for v10. Last I checked we still wish for pg_dump 9.6 to work
against 7.0, as I mention in the portion you quote above. I agree that we
don't need to ensure that v10 pg_dump works against 7.0, which is helpful,
certainly, but there's still a lot left on the floor in the back branches
as it relates to code coverage and the buildfarm.

Thanks!

Stephen

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-05-31 05:26:30 Re: [PATCH] quiet conversion warning in DatumGetFloat4
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-05-31 05:16:21 Re: TAP backpatching policy