On 01/03/2011 01:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It might be reasonable to argue that this particular patch
> is too invasive to be safe to back-patch, but I don't agree with the
> premise that it isn't a reasonable topic for a back-patch.
The patch for the non-buildsystem code is one line. The rest is about 20
> I do have some concern about loss of buildfarm coverage for older VS
> versions, but if Andrew isn't going to cover those, perhaps someone else
> will step up for that.
The machine involved already has three buildfarm critters. If I have to
have three versions of VS installed (since we're now talking about
installing a new one) that will grow to five, on one VM currently
running on a small not very powerful Athlon X2 machine. It's already a
pain in the neck to manage. Some time in the future I might have
resources to run more, but right now I do not.
Incidentally, I just went looking for VS2005/Express on microsoft.com. I
don't know if they still make it available, but if they do it's fairly
well hidden. I could find VS2008/Express and VS2010/Express very easily.
ISTM that having support on the live branches for the compilers/SDKs
that Microsoft apparently actually supports and distributes is not a bad
thing to have.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-03 19:26:28|
|Subject: Re: back branches vs. VS 2008|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-03 19:18:23|
|Subject: Re: pg_dump --split patch |