On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 19:50, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 19:08, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>> I'm not going to maintain more than one buildfarm member doing MSVC, and and
>>> if we were to adopt your policy I would not be able to use a modern-ish
>>> version of the compiler/SDK and also build all the live branches.
>> Well, it's perfectly possible to have more tha none version of MSVC on
>> the machine.
>> And we're not going to be changing the version that's actually used
>> for the official binary builds, so all you'll accomplish then is to
>> have the buildfarm test something different form what we're shipping.
> Are you speaking for EDB on that? Do you even know what they're using
> to build the Windows installers?
Yes and yes.
Well, I'm not actually speaking for them, so I guess we'll need a +1
from Dave. But given that the principle has held for all the previous
releases made, I assume it still does.
The second yes is not pending a +1, I know exaclty what they use.
> We've made backpatches before to support building/running older branches
> on newer platforms. We do it all the time in fact. (The latest
> instance was hacking the Linux wal_sync_method defaults. If you think
> this isn't a necessary activity, try building a 7.1 or so branch with a
> modern gcc.) 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.
Fair enough. I don't care enough to object more :-)
> 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.
I'd be worried if we don't have coverage for the versions that are
actually used to build the installers. But those may be what Dave has
covered on his animals already - Dave?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-01-03 19:01:20|
|Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-01-03 18:50:14|
|Subject: Re: back branches vs. VS 2008 |