Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Chris <rfusca(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2
Date: 2010-06-28 22:59:41
Message-ID: 201006282259.o5SMxfY03093@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >>> You could argue it either way. The number of beta testers with
> >>> plpython3 installations is probably very small, so I'm kinda leaning to
> >>> just changing the code without a catversion bump. OTOH, if we want to
> >>> encourage testing of pg_upgrade ...
> >>
> >> FWIW, the last bump has led to a lot of testing of pgupgrade.
>
> > And fixes, that will appear in 9.0 beta3. :-) Most fixes were related
> > to platform compile portability.
>
> Well, if you think that pg_upgrade has changed materially since beta2,
> that would be a good argument for getting some fresh testing for it,
> which in turn argues for doing the catversion bump here.

Attached are the changes since beta2; they are pretty minor. The good
news is I think all reporters eventually got it working. I assume using
it for beta3 would allow it work even better, and once you have use it
once, using it again is simple.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ None of us is going to be here forever. +

Attachment Content-Type Size
unknown_filename text/plain 1.4 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2010-06-28 23:52:58 Re: Admission Control
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-06-28 22:54:16 Re: testing plpython3u on 9.0beta2