Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA7D36345AF for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:14:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18879-02 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:13:56 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689A8633CB9 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:14:02 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n54ECLMV013403; Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:12:21 -0400 (EDT) To: Andrew Dunstan cc: Magnus Hagander , Dave Page , Josh Berkus , PostgreSQL-development Subject: Re: It's June 1; do you know where your release is? In-reply-to: <4A27C1BB.7080909@dunslane.net> References: <19107.1243873940@sss.pgh.pa.us> <603c8f070906012050p6ccd62d3v13d3e0f887fe7c90@mail.gmail.com> <15765.1243965376@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4A25C32F.30203@agliodbs.com> <4A25C9A9.5010303@dunslane.net> <4A25D91B.5080401@dunslane.net> <4A26FF38.8090308@dunslane.net> <937d27e10906031610g341525e5j9414d8af3d8f293c@mail.gmail.com> <4A270A06.1010507@dunslane.net> <937d27e10906040249u73ac21dds6057300011d38a2d@mail.gmail.com> <4A27AA1D.6000800@hagander.net> <4A27C1BB.7080909@dunslane.net> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Dunstan message dated "Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:44:43 -0400" Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:12:21 -0400 Message-ID: <13402.1244124741@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.107 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200906/416 X-Sequence-Number: 139471 Andrew Dunstan writes: > I have cleaned up the patch from yesterday slightly, too. I'm wondering > how far back we should backpatch all this. This API was actually > documented in Perl (just) before 7.4 was released, so in theory the API > adjustment should go all the way back. However, in practice it hasn't > been a problem until now, and we aren't supporting Windows releases > before 8.2, so I think 8.2 is probably the right spot. My inclination is "backpatch all the way". Now that we know the problem is we are failing to adhere to Perl's published API, I bet we could find some other problems it causes, if we poked into the right nooks and crannies. And not just on Windows. regards, tom lane