Re: what's going on with lapwing?

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Andrew Dunstan <adunstan@postgresql.org>, pgbuildfarm@rjuju.net
Date: 2025-03-06T21:27:45Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2025 at 2:13 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It's hard to "mandate" anything in a distributed project like this.
>> I don't really see a need to either, at least for cases where an
>> old animal isn't causing us extra work.

> I don't know, to me it feels like we have the argument about whether
> StegosaurOS is actually dead or whether there might be survivors of
> the Chixulub impact hiding somewhere several times a year.

I think you misunderstood my drift.  I'm okay with setting a project
policy that we won't support OSes that are more than N years EOL,
as long as it's phrased to account for older PG branches properly.
My point was that we can implement such a policy in a laissez-faire
way: if an older BF animal isn't causing us trouble then why mess
with it?  Once we *do* recognize that it's causing us trouble,
we can apply the still-hypothetical policy and ask the owner to
turn it off for branches where it's out of support.

			regards, tom lane



Commits

  1. Revert workarounds for -Wmissing-braces false positives on old GCC

  2. Convert sepgsql tests to TAP