Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gpIMI-0005ne-Ty for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:50:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gpIMH-0004sb-LN for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:50:45 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gpIMH-0004sQ-Av for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:50:45 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gpIME-0007ef-Un for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 19:50:44 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0VJobhK011919; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:50:37 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Robert Haas cc: Christoph Berg , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: pgsql: Build src/port files as a library with -fPIC, and use that in li In-reply-to: References: <20180928115830.GC26142@msg.df7cb.de> <19404.1538140436@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20180928132013.GE26142@msg.df7cb.de> <20671.1538142538@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20190129140437.GF9860@msg.df7cb.de> <27653.1548774621@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:23:16 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <11917.1548964237.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 14:50:37 -0500 Message-ID: <11918.1548964237@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Robert Haas writes: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:10 AM Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, 8.2 is *very* long out of support, and there are plenty of >> nasty bugs you're at risk of if you keep using it. So I don't >> find this to be a good argument for contorting what we do in v12. > Isn't the issue more a matter of whether it's OK to break > compatibility without changing SO_*_VERSION? We're breaking compatibility only if you regard pqsignal() as part of the advertised API, which I don't. regards, tom lane