Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm
Date
Msg-id 11873.1217348699@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Python 2.5 vs the buildfarm  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> 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.

Well, it would certainly depend on how much effort was involved to make
it work.  In this case, I drew the line at messing with autoconf ;-) ...
otherwise I might've tried to fix 7.4 as well.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: Do we really want to migrate plproxy and citext into PG core distribution?
Next
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: TABLE-function patch vs plpgsql