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
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.
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Sailesh Krishnamurthy||Date: 2003-01-06 04:45:48|
|Subject: Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-01-06 04:26:37|
|Subject: Re: Question about bit.h and bit.c |