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

Re: back branches vs. VS 2008

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: back branches vs. VS 2008
Date: 2011-01-03 19:23:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 01/03/2011 01:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It might be reasonable to argue that this particular patch
> is too invasive to be safe to back-patch, but I don't agree with the
> premise that it isn't a reasonable topic for a back-patch.

The patch for the non-buildsystem code is one line. The rest is about 20 

> I do have some concern about loss of buildfarm coverage for older VS
> versions, but if Andrew isn't going to cover those, perhaps someone else
> will step up for that.

The machine involved already has three buildfarm critters. If I have to 
have three versions of VS installed (since we're now talking about 
installing a new one) that will grow to five, on one VM currently 
running on a small not very powerful Athlon X2 machine. It's already a 
pain in the neck to manage. Some time in the future I might have 
resources to run more, but right now I do not.

Incidentally, I just went looking for VS2005/Express on I 
don't know if they still make it available, but if they do it's fairly 
well hidden. I could find VS2008/Express and VS2010/Express very easily. 
ISTM that having support on the live branches for the compilers/SDKs 
that Microsoft apparently actually supports and distributes is not a bad 
thing to have.



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-01-03 19:26:28
Subject: Re: back branches vs. VS 2008
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-03 19:18:23
Subject: Re: pg_dump --split patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group