Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYSjNxhDPc5SzxwJGPkpO_o7LGDKxz+RQcQ8xah0LGfoQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Back branches vs. gcc 4.8.0  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> So I think this is not a compiler bug or an arms race.  We just need to
> fix the code.  So I'm in favor of backporting.

I can certainly see this argument.  I understand Tom's point about an
arms race, but back-porting this doesn't feel terribly risky to me.
The thing is, if the arms race is escalating faster than we're
comfortable with, we can always opt opt at a later time; it's not as
if back-porting this fix now commits us irrevocably.

Then, too, I tend to think this is more our fault than gcc's - for a change.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Unrecognized type error (postgres 9.1.4)
Next
From: Rodrigo Barboza
Date:
Subject: Re: Unrecognized type error (postgres 9.1.4)