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 
lines.

> 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.

cheers

andrew

In response to

• Re: back branches vs. VS 2008 at 2011-01-03 18:50:14 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: back branches vs. VS 2008 at 2011-01-03 19:26:28 from Robert Haas

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