From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: Updated macOS start scripts
In-reply-to: <6D443E39-13C2-4185-9FE4-B5CB416AB06E@gmail.com>
References: <31338.1510763554@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <6D443E39-13C2-4185-9FE4-B5CB416AB06E@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 15 Nov 2017 10:13:21 -0800"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <21688.1510772433.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 14:00:33 -0500
Message-ID: <21689.1510772433@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Nov 15, 2017, at 8:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The stuff in contrib/start-scripts/osx/ does not, as far as I know,
>> work at all on any recent release of macOS, because SystemStarter
>> is long gone.  I propose replacing it with the attached, which
>> I've tested on current-vintage Macs.

> Overall, I think supporting 10.10 and greater is more relevant than cont=
inuing
> to support 10.4 and earlier, though I suppose someone could argue for
> keeping both in side-by-side files with the README directing users which=
 to
> use for whichever version of OS X they happen to be running.  It's of no
> consequence to me, since my oldest mac is running 10.6.8, but somebody
> from the museum of old macs might feel differently.

Well, we have no buildfarm coverage before 10.4, so to my mind those
releases are desupported already.  In practice I wonder whether anyone
is really running PG on such old releases anyway.  Certainly I wouldn't
think they'd be making new PG installations on machines that old.

			regards, tom lane