Thread
Commits
-
Doc: update RELEASE_CHANGES checklist.
- e8ce68b0b9ae 14.0 landed
-
v14 mechanical code beautification patches
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-05-05T18:18:04Z
It's getting to be time to think about these steps for v14: * Renumber any manually-assigned OIDs between 8000 and 9999 to lower numbers, using renumber_oids.pl (see notes in bki.sgml) * pgindent, perltidy, reformat-dat-files * Update config.guess and config.sub (from https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/config) * Update Unicode data: Edit UNICODE_VERSION and CLDR_VERSION in src/Makefile.global.in, run make update-unicode, and commit. It looks like Peter already took care of the last two. Barring objections, I'll plan to do the first two next Wednesday or so (after the back-branch-release dust has settled). I notice that we also list this as a pre-beta task in src/tools/RELEASE_CHANGES: * Update inet/cidr data types with newest Bind patches However, I can't recall that anyone has ever done any such thing; and at this point, any attempt to re-sync that code would likely be a rather major task. Should we take that off the checklist? regards, tom lane
-
Re: v14 mechanical code beautification patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2021-05-05T22:55:25Z
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 02:18:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I notice that we also list this as a pre-beta task in > src/tools/RELEASE_CHANGES: > > * Update inet/cidr data types with newest Bind patches > > However, I can't recall that anyone has ever done any such thing; > and at this point, any attempt to re-sync that code would likely > be a rather major task. Should we take that off the checklist? I think it is related to these files: src/backend/utils/adt/inet_cidr_ntop.c src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c which have at the top: * Copyright (c) 2004 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC") * Copyright (c) 1996,1999 by Internet Software Consortium. but I am not sure we still need to update those, so I would remove it. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion. -
Re: v14 mechanical code beautification patches
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-05-05T23:08:35Z
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 02:18:04PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I notice that we also list this as a pre-beta task in >> src/tools/RELEASE_CHANGES: >> * Update inet/cidr data types with newest Bind patches >> However, I can't recall that anyone has ever done any such thing; >> and at this point, any attempt to re-sync that code would likely >> be a rather major task. Should we take that off the checklist? > I think it is related to these files: > src/backend/utils/adt/inet_cidr_ntop.c > src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c > which have at the top: > * Copyright (c) 2004 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC") > * Copyright (c) 1996,1999 by Internet Software Consortium. > but I am not sure we still need to update those, so I would remove it. I dug in the archives and found the thread that prompted you to add that bullet item: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200502021700.j12H05j20872%40candle.pha.pa.us which made the point that those were moving targets back in 2005. I doubt they still are, so I don't see much point in keeping this in the checklist. (There may or may not be value in doing a one-time check to see if we've missed anything.) regards, tom lane -
Re: v14 mechanical code beautification patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2021-05-06T00:01:22Z
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 07:08:35PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think it is related to these files: > > src/backend/utils/adt/inet_cidr_ntop.c > > src/backend/utils/adt/inet_net_pton.c > > which have at the top: > > * Copyright (c) 2004 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC") > > * Copyright (c) 1996,1999 by Internet Software Consortium. > > but I am not sure we still need to update those, so I would remove it. > > I dug in the archives and found the thread that prompted you to > add that bullet item: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200502021700.j12H05j20872%40candle.pha.pa.us > > which made the point that those were moving targets back in 2005. > I doubt they still are, so I don't see much point in keeping this > in the checklist. > > (There may or may not be value in doing a one-time check to see > if we've missed anything.) Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion. -
Re: v14 mechanical code beautification patches
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2021-05-06T02:45:01Z
I wrote: > I dug in the archives and found the thread that prompted you to > add that bullet item: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200502021700.j12H05j20872%40candle.pha.pa.us > which made the point that those were moving targets back in 2005. > I doubt they still are, so I don't see much point in keeping this > in the checklist. > (There may or may not be value in doing a one-time check to see > if we've missed anything.) I located the "current" versions of those files in libbind 6.0. (I put "current" in quotes because the file dates seem to be 2005-2008, so indeed development came to a stop a long time ago.) They are *very* different from what we have, though. Some of it is visibly cosmetic, but other parts have been rewritten quite a bit, so it's hard to tell if the functionality is identical. In the absence of a reason to think we have bugs that we need to fix, I'm not sure it's worth analyzing the differences in detail. I definitely wouldn't just adopt all the diffs blindly. In any case, that RELEASE_CHANGES item is clearly a dead letter now, so I'll go remove it. regards, tom lane
-
Re: v14 mechanical code beautification patches
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> — 2021-05-06T10:28:21Z
On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 10:45:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I located the "current" versions of those files in libbind 6.0. > (I put "current" in quotes because the file dates seem to be > 2005-2008, so indeed development came to a stop a long time ago.) > > They are *very* different from what we have, though. Some of it > is visibly cosmetic, but other parts have been rewritten quite a bit, > so it's hard to tell if the functionality is identical. > > In the absence of a reason to think we have bugs that we need to > fix, I'm not sure it's worth analyzing the differences in detail. > I definitely wouldn't just adopt all the diffs blindly. > > In any case, that RELEASE_CHANGES item is clearly a dead letter > now, so I'll go remove it. OK, thanks for checking. I think there was some concern about IPv6 changes at the time we adopted this. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.