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
-
Revert workarounds for -Wmissing-braces false positives on old GCC
- 618c64ffd396 18.0 landed
-
Convert sepgsql tests to TAP
- aeb8ea361a0a 18.0 cited