Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?
Date
Msg-id Zh24pg_-NDJGRycp@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 07:14:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I could switch the animal to use -Wno-deprecated-declarations in the
> back branches, but I'd rather not.  I think the right answer is to
> back-patch Michael's 65c5864d7 (xml2: Replace deprecated routines with
> recommended ones).  We speculated about that at the time (see e.g.,
> 400928b83) but didn't pull the trigger.  I think 65c5864d7 has now
> baked long enough that it'd be safe to back-patch.

Yeah, I saw the failure with indri this morning while screening the
buildfarm, and was going to send a message about that.  Backpatching
65c5864d7 would be the right answer to that, agreed, and that should
be rather straight-forward.

Note however the presence of xml_is_well_formed in the back-branches,
where there is an extra xmlParseMemory that needs to be switched to
xmlReadMemory but that's a simple switch.

Would you prefer if I do it?
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Time to back-patch libxml deprecation fixes?
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: SQL function which allows to distinguish a server being in point in time recovery mode and an ordinary replica