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

Re: Upgrading rant.

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>,mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Date: 2003-01-06 04:41:30
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sunday 05 January 2003 23:10, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > It is very possible that the supporting libc shared libraries
> > will be removed by the OS upgrade -- the old binaries may not even run
> > when it is critical that they do run.

> Urgh, that's a mess.

Yah, it is a mess.  I've been playing in that mudpit for three years....

> > If I can get older versions building again on newer systems, that will
> > help buy some breathing room from my point of view.

> Worst-case, we could include a back-rev postmaster binary in new
> distributions.

While I have in the past suggested this, I'm not happy with the idea, even 
though it may be the best short-term solution.

> However, that still requires us to keep the back revs
> buildable on newer OS releases, which evidently is less than trivial
> in the Linux world :-(

That is the wonderful result of having so many rapidly developing 
applications, including our own.  We have, I'm sure, given a few ulcers to 
Linux distributors too.
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Sailesh KrishnamurthyDate: 2003-01-06 04:45:48
Subject: Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-01-06 04:26:37
Subject: Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c

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