From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tels <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2017 12:22:38 -0400
Message-ID: <23840.1501431758@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <48949fdf4e0df05fca589016e0d8d9cc.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
References: <20540.1501210115@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<16894.1501392088@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<48949fdf4e0df05fca589016e0d8d9cc.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
"Tels" <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com> writes:
> On Sun, July 30, 2017 1:21 am, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> So the question is, does anyone care? I wouldn't except that our
>>> documentation appears to claim that we work with Perl "5.8 or later".
> Not sure how often People use old Perl versions out in the field. I'd
> venture this is either happens with "ancient" stuff, e.g. where people
> just can't or want upgrade.
> Otherwise, an up-to-date OS is just necessary for security, anyway, and
> that would contain a Perl from this decade, wouldn't it?
Well, that's not really the point, IMO. The reason I'm interested in
this is the same reason I run some buildfarm critters on ancient
platforms: if we do something that breaks backwards compatibility
with old software, we should know it and make a deliberate decision
that it's okay. (And update the relevant compatibility claims in our
docs.) Moving the compatibility goalposts without knowing it isn't
good, especially if it happens in supposedly-stable release branches.
>> I am unable to confirm our claim that we work with Test::More 0.82,
>> because CPAN has only versions from a year or three back. (Anyone
>> know of a more, er, comprehensive archive than CPAN?) It's also
>> interesting to speculate about how old a version of IPC::Run is new
>> enough, but I see no easy way to get much data on that either.
> Test::More has been bundled with Perl since 5.6.2 (you can use "corelist"
> to check for these things), so if all fails, it might be possible to
> extract a version from a Perl distribution [4].
Yeah, I looked into that. The closest candidate I can find is that
perl 5.10.1 contains Test::More 0.92. However, it's not real clear
to me exactly which files I'd need to pull out of 5.10.1 and inject into
an older tarball --- the layout seems a lot different from a standalone
package.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com, andrew@dunslane.net
Subject: Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
In-Reply-To: <23840.1501431758@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox