| From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Portability report: ninja |
| Date: | 2021-11-01 20:06:20 |
| Message-ID: | bb618071-aab7-9f52-db3a-22ec46879c4f@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 11/1/21 15:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> So it's pretty clear that if we go this way, it'll be the end of
> the line for support for some very old OS versions. I can't,
> however, argue with the idea that it's reasonable to require
> POSIX 2001 support now. Based on these results, I doubt that
> ninja will give us trouble on any platform that isn't old
> enough to get its drivers license.
You can also look at it as:
If PostgreSQL choose a newer build system then it is up to the companies
owning the "non-supported" operating systems to add support for the
build system in question; not the PostgreSQL community.
+1 for POSIX.2001 and meson/ninja.
Best regards,
Jesper
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-11-01 20:13:06 | Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-11-01 20:06:15 | Re: Feature request for adoptive indexes |