Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Dilger
Subject Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions
Date
Msg-id 405A7844-BD85-4D2E-AA1E-7073DC6A6F62@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers

> On Dec 7, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I'm not entirely following ... are you suggesting that each released minor
> version needs to be kept buildable separately?

No.  I'm just wondering if we want to share the product of such efforts if anybody (me, for instance) volunteers to do
itfor some subset of minor releases.  For my heap corruption checking work, I might want to be able to build a small
numberof old minor releases that I know had corruption bugs. 

—
Mark Dilger
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company






pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Why doesn't pgstat_report_analyze() focus on not-all-visible-page dead tuple counts, specifically?