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

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions
Date
Msg-id 6f92dea3-9619-be68-239f-8990a832b453@dunslane.net
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  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 12/9/21 12:50, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> In short then, there is a really large gap between 9.1 and 9.2 in terms
> of how hard they are to build on current toolchains.  It's kind of
> fortunate that Peter proposed 9.2 rather than some earlier cutoff.
> In any case, I've completely lost interest in trying to move the
> keep-it-buildable cutoff to any earlier than 9.2; it doesn't look
> like the effort-to-benefit ratio would be attractive at all.
>
>             


9.2 is how far back crake goes in testing pg_ugrade from old versions,
so that could well be a convenient stopping point. For older versions
there is still the possibility of building on older toolchains and
running on modern ones. Yes it's more cumbersome, but it does mean we
can test an awful long way back. I don't remember the last time I saw a
really old version in the wild, but I'm sure there are some out there
sitting in a cupboard humming along.

This might also be a good time to revive work on making the TAP test
framework backwards compatible via subclassing.


cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Masahiko Sawada
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel vacuum comments
Next
From: "曾文旌(义从)"
Date:
Subject: 回复:Re: 回复:Re: Is it worth pushing conditions to sublink/subplan?