Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm
Date: 2008-07-29 16:24:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I really don't understand Peter's objection here.  This thread has
>> already consumed more person-time than I spent on applying the
>> back-patch.  

> Well I certainly wouldn't expect us to feel obligated to spend much effort
> making 8.1 work with a new Redhat release, for example. We would just say 8.1
> is only supported on those systems it was supported on when it was released.

Well, it would certainly depend on how much effort was involved to make
it work.  In this case, I drew the line at messing with autoconf ;-) ...
otherwise I might've tried to fix 7.4 as well.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2008-07-29 16:27:27
Subject: Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql
Previous:From: David E. WheelerDate: 2008-07-29 16:09:58
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group