| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: TAP backpatching policy |
| Date: | 2017-05-31 04:39:15 |
| Message-ID: | 3644.1496205555@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Craig Ringer (craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> At the moment that'd be 9.5, since that's where PostgresNode was
>> introduced. But if I can find the time I'd quite like to backport
>> PostgresNode to 9.4 too.
> Makes sense to me.
Um ... but we still have 2 live pre-9.4 branches. If your proposal
doesn't extend to back-porting all of this stuff as far as 9.2,
I don't see what this is really buying. We'd still need version cutoff
checks in the tests.
(If you *do* propose back-patching all this stuff as far as 9.2, I'm not
quite sure what I'd think about that. But the proposal as stated seems
like questionable half measures.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-05-31 04:52:30 | Re: TAP backpatching policy |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-05-31 04:26:34 | Re: TAP backpatching policy |