Re: Hokey wrong versions of libpq in apt.postgresql.org

From: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hokey wrong versions of libpq in apt.postgresql.org
Date: 2014-08-12 17:26:24
Message-ID: 53EA4E40.9040905@pinpointresearch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/07/2014 04:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I know this has been brought up before:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20140724080902.GA28113@msg.df7cb.de

For reference, libpq and packaging issues discussed here as well:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53A304BC.40908@pinpointresearch.com
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53989C91.6050403@pinpointresearch.com

>
> But this is just plain wrong. I don't care that the FAQ (on the wiki)
> says we are doing it wrong for good reasons. When I (or anyone else)
> pulls postgresql-$version-dev, I want the libpq for my version. I do
> not want 9.3.
>
> Yes, it "should" (because of protocol compatibility) work but it
> doesn't always (as stated in that email and in a similar problem we
> just ran into).
>
> There can be unintended circumstances on machines when you mix and
> match like that. Can we please do some proper packaging on this?

+1

Cheers,
Steve

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2014-08-12 17:34:02 Re: PL/PgSQL: RAISE and the number of parameters
Previous Message Andres Freund 2014-08-12 17:18:21 Re: [RFC] Should smgrtruncate() avoid sending sinval message for temp relations