| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Victor Spirin <v(dot)spirin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows. |
| Date: | 2021-12-10 04:28:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+xkaVBkJnRrvayf8pbeSdtnaWSNE1iiVGVjS8agvpHRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 5:23 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Playing the devil's advocate here: why shouldn't we routinely drop
> support for anything that'll be EOL'd when a given PostgreSQL major
> release ships? The current policy seems somewhat extreme in the other
> direction: our target OS baseline is a contemporary of RHEL 2 or 3 and
> Linux 2.4.x, and our minimum compiler is a contemporary of GCC 3.x.
Oops, I take those contemporaries back, I was looking at older
documentation... but still the general point stands, can't we be a
little more aggressive?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-12-10 04:33:17 | Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows. |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-12-10 04:23:09 | Re: Atomic rename feature for Windows. |