| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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: | 2021-12-09 14:01:43 |
| Message-ID: | f83f43bb-f170-eced-f95b-4a0f13ca55f5@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06.12.21 22:19, Tom Lane wrote:
> A minimal amount of maintenance would be "only back-patch fixes
> for issues that cause failure-to-build". The next step up is "fix
> issues that cause failure-to-pass-regression-tests", and then above
> that is "fix developer-facing annoyances, such as compiler warnings
> or unwanted test output, as long as you aren't changing user-facing
> behavior". I now think that it'd be reasonable to include this
> last group, although I'm pretty sure Peter didn't have that in mind
> in his policy sketch.
I would be okay with that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-12-09 14:04:36 | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Previous Message | Laurent Laborde | 2021-12-09 14:00:24 | Re: Appetite for Frama-C annotations? |