Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?
Date: 2024-04-15 23:30:46
Message-ID: Zh24pg_-NDJGRycp@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 07:14:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I could switch the animal to use -Wno-deprecated-declarations in the
> back branches, but I'd rather not. I think the right answer is to
> back-patch Michael's 65c5864d7 (xml2: Replace deprecated routines with
> recommended ones). We speculated about that at the time (see e.g.,
> 400928b83) but didn't pull the trigger. I think 65c5864d7 has now
> baked long enough that it'd be safe to back-patch.

Yeah, I saw the failure with indri this morning while screening the
buildfarm, and was going to send a message about that. Backpatching
65c5864d7 would be the right answer to that, agreed, and that should
be rather straight-forward.

Note however the presence of xml_is_well_formed in the back-branches,
where there is an extra xmlParseMemory that needs to be switched to
xmlReadMemory but that's a simple switch.

Would you prefer if I do it?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2024-04-15 23:39:39 Re: SQL function which allows to distinguish a server being in point in time recovery mode and an ordinary replica
Previous Message Andres Freund 2024-04-15 23:20:43 Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?