| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
| Date: | 2021-10-25 16:43:15 |
| Message-ID: | 4048007.1635180195@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> I do think you have moved the goalposts: to reiterate what I said above,
> I thought what we wanted was to have *some* server in order to test
> client-side changes with; not to be able to get a server running on
> every possible platform. I'm not really on board with the idea that old
> branches have to be buildable everywhere all the time.
Agreed, that might be too much work compared to the value. But if we're
to be selective about support for this, I'm unclear on how we decide
which platforms are supported --- and, more importantly, how we keep
that list up to date over time.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-10-25 16:56:20 | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-25 16:38:38 | Re: pgsql: Remove unused wait events. |