Thread: Raising the Pl/Perl required version

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


This was raised before, but I can't find the exact thread. I'd
like to re-open the idea of boosting the minimum Perl version
for PL/Perl to 5.6. My primary motivation is to provide use
of "our" for the %TD hash, as mentioned before (cannot find the
email right now). Being as 5.6 was released nearly six years
ago, in March of 2000, I'm hoping that this won't meet too many
objections.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200602111428
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFD7jsQvJuQZxSWSsgRAkH8AJ9cf9uCjVKNBUZwtUT/q5ODtZZrfQCgtaVW
n43hYpQqHObl5eIRKijFGUM=
=ko1M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> This was raised before, but I can't find the exact thread. I'd
> like to re-open the idea of boosting the minimum Perl version
> for PL/Perl to 5.6.

I don't think this is unreasonable.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

See here:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-10/msg00438.php

I don't mind requiring 5.6, but I do want to think carefully about the 
implications of changing the declaration of $_TD from "my" to "our", 
especially if multiple triggers fire. Is there a danger we might clobber 
one?


cheers

andrew

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:

>
>This was raised before, but I can't find the exact thread. I'd
>like to re-open the idea of boosting the minimum Perl version
>for PL/Perl to 5.6. My primary motivation is to provide use
>of "our" for the %TD hash, as mentioned before (cannot find the
>email right now). Being as 5.6 was released nearly six years
>ago, in March of 2000, I'm hoping that this won't meet too many
>objections.
>
>
>  
>