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
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? |