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

Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm

From: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm
Date: 2008-07-29 15:48:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Am Tuesday, 29. July 2008 schrieb Greg Sabino Mullane:
>>> What's not stable about having Python 2.5?
>> I mean "stable" to mean "does not change (unnecessarily)".
> I really don't understand Peter's objection here.  This thread has
> already consumed more person-time than I spent on applying the
> back-patch.  

Well I certainly wouldn't expect us to feel obligated to spend much effort
making 8.1 work with a new Redhat release, for example. We would just say 8.1
is only supported on those systems it was supported on when it was released.

But if you're happy doing the work I can't see any reason to stop you either.

  Gregory Stark
  Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training!

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-29 15:58:00
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-07-29 15:08:13
Subject: Re: patch: Add a separate TRUNCATE permission

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group