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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobzrGnGr9PYF-hYbDuayQg_eGq=JdgddqDp7d+4uzfm=Q@mail.gmail.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>)
Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 11:00 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Actually, I think we do.  If I want to test against 7.4, ISTM I want
> to test against the last released 7.4 version, not something with
> arbitrary later changes.  Otherwise, what exactly is the point?

1. You're free to check out any commit you like.

2. Nothing I said can reasonably be confused with "let's allow
arbitrary later changes."

> Uh, don't we have that already?  I know you can configure a buildfarm
> animal to force a run at least every-so-often, but it's not required,
> and I don't think it's even the default.

Oh, OK. I wonder how that plays with the buildfarm status page's
desire to drop old results that are more than 30 days old. I guess
you'd just need to force a run at least every 28 days or something.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions