A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com (Mike Mascari) wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
>> On Tuesday 09 March 2004 10:46 am, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
>>>>BTW, I can't really see the harm in putting out 7.1.x and 7.2.x
>>>>releases to fix compilation issues on modern systems.
>>>Also, quite frankly, I don't want to encourage people to keep using
>>>such old releases. If they are installing on a new machine they should
>>>update to something newer and less buggy.
>> We need the older versions to be compilable on newer systems to ease
>> in version upgrades and migration.
> How could they find themselves in a situation where they have a 7.1
> installation that requires dumping for migration, but no binaries due
> to compilation errors? Isn't that a rather low-probability scenario?
The problem isn't so much that of "complete inability" to get
binaries, but rather of it becoming significantly inconvenient to get
What if we had a RHAT 6.3 system running PG 7.1, and the "system"
partition got dumped on? We have the data directory; we'd like to
mount it on a spicy new RHAT 8.0 system, and recover it.
If I rummage around looking for tips, I can doubtless discover the set
of things that need to get patched in order to recompile on RHAT 8.0;
it sure would be nice to not have to rummage round for them.
"The beginning of wisdom for a [software engineer] is to recognize the
difference between getting a program to work, and getting it right."
-- M A Jackson, 1975
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Theodore Petrosky||Date: 2004-03-09 22:17:23|
|Subject: not necessarily a bug...|
|Previous:||From: Mike Mascari||Date: 2004-03-09 16:40:14|
|Subject: Re: buglet in 7.1.4|