Robert Haas wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> Because we work hard to minimize our dependencies and make them as
> non-onerous as possible.
>
> 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. If there is some
> major speed or performance advantage to using the newer API, maybe
> we'll consider it. But if it's just a few extra lines of code to work
> around it, then it's better to write those extra lines of code rather
> than potentially force users to upgrade packages they're otherwise
> happy with.
>
>
The real issue is what's going to be available on most of the platforms
we build on. Unfortunately, 2.6.26 is what's on my CentOS 5.4 boxes, for
example. I'm sure we don't want to make 9.1 not buildable with the
installed libraries on still fairly current RedHat-derived platforms.
cheers
andrew
