On fre, 2010-04-30 at 14:43 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Friday 30 April 2010 13:56:11 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > You probably mean alpha5, unless you come from the future. ;-) That was
> > actually a mistake in the packaging, which is why there is a -revised
> > tarball available.
> Isnt it a good idea to set this in the pre-release versions? It might catch
> potential problems and people trying to compile unreleased software from
> source should be able to change it/report a bug if necessary.
In practice it might prevent more people from building and thus testing
PostgreSQL than it would catch actually interesting problems. You also
can't assume that the same warning-freeness applies to all platforms.
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-04-30 13:16:52|
|Subject: Re: BUG #5443: Undetected deadlock situation|
|Previous:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2010-04-30 12:43:20|
|Subject: Re: [9.0beta5/cvs head] build failure due to unchecked results|