| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions |
| Date: | 2021-12-06 20:38:55 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobDY0ShV2Nso4x3mgLSA1dPvfi3KB9CK=Jo-USjWLskGA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 7:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Based on these results, I think maybe we should raise our ambitions
> a bit compared to Peter's original proposal. Specifically,
> I wonder if it wouldn't be wise to try to silence compile warnings
> in these branches. The argument for this is basically that if we
> don't, then every time someone builds one of these branches, they
> have to tediously go through the warnings and verify that
> they're not important. It won't take long for the accumulated
> time-wastage from that to exceed the cost of back-patching whatever
> we did to silence the warning in later branches.
Yep. I have long been of the view, and have said before, that there is
very little harm in doing some maintenance of EOL branches. Making it
easy to test against them is a great way to improve our chances of
actually having the amount of backward-compatibility that we say we
want to have.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2021-12-06 20:44:54 | Re: Transparent column encryption |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-12-06 20:30:28 | Re: ExecTypeSetColNames is fundamentally broken |