Re: Anyone tried PG with Perl 5.10? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Greg Sabino Mullane
Subject Re: Anyone tried PG with Perl 5.10?
Date
Msg-id 11d5bdebe8be0e41d270b1b86c555179@biglumber.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Anyone tried PG with Perl 5.10?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Anyone tried PG with Perl 5.10?  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


> I read that Perl 5.10 is about to hit Fedora rawhide.  Anyone know if
> it will work with plperl and/or DBD::Pg?  If there are fixes needed
> in plperl, it'd sure be nice if they were in 8.3 ...

I've tested 5.10 against both and they seem to work fine. My plperl tests
are not necessarily thorough, but it compiled smoothly and ran a bunch of
plperlu code without a problem. DBD::Pg worked fine, all its tests passed.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHlLMevJuQZxSWSsgRA4neAJoCJtcPusA86PBpZHsmnSWyeKroQACg1CcS
jVgOjqD8ousq5jxIJq3+Sbc=
=XzXA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hiroshi Saito"
Date:
Subject: Re: mklink of pg_standby
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Anyone tried PG with Perl 5.10?