| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris <rfusca(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2 |
| Date: | 2010-06-28 22:54:16 |
| Message-ID: | 5553.1277765656@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> You could argue it either way. The number of beta testers with
>>> plpython3 installations is probably very small, so I'm kinda leaning to
>>> just changing the code without a catversion bump. OTOH, if we want to
>>> encourage testing of pg_upgrade ...
>>
>> FWIW, the last bump has led to a lot of testing of pgupgrade.
> And fixes, that will appear in 9.0 beta3. :-) Most fixes were related
> to platform compile portability.
Well, if you think that pg_upgrade has changed materially since beta2,
that would be a good argument for getting some fresh testing for it,
which in turn argues for doing the catversion bump here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-28 22:59:41 | Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2 |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-28 21:18:29 | Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2 |