Mike Fowler wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Mike Fowler <mike@mlfowler.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> We're unlikely to accept this patch if it changes the minimum version
> >>>> of libxml2 required to compile PostgreSQL
> >>>>
> >>> Why? 2.6.27 is almost 4 years old.
> >> At a minimum, I think it's fair to say that the burden is on you to
> >> justify what it's worth bumping the version number.
> >>
> >
> > Yes. Increasing the minimum required version of some library is a Big
> > Deal, we don't do it on a whim. And we definitely don't do it just
> > because it's old.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
> >
> >
>
> OK, I consider myself suitably educated/chastised. I now understand why
> a version bump is such a big deal. Your objections are all reasonable, I
> suppose I'm just used to living on the bleeding edge of everything.
> Consequently I have changed the code to produce the same result in a
> different way without using the new function. I've down-graded my
> version to 2.6.26 and it all compiles cleanly. Please find attached my
> revised patch, and thanks all for your advise.
FYI, it is often good to add a comment in the C code about why you
didn't use the new XML function so if the issue comes up again, we know
why, and in 10 years, we can use it. ;-)
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
