From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:00:42 -0400
Message-ID: <3888809.1635174042@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYF2xUB=witcYipb6nriLGN48463RpS6v1mhGA_whLNMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+TgmoboH6=SgWHPddv_8ie91Qf2ECKSvg-72aYajKb2gyLYQg@mail.gmail.com>
<202110222351.3f42l5fgo3lw@alvherre.pgsql>
<CA+TgmobB8cj30z6dzEf5xNTxzGRNGmkJsCr3nv_Hneo0o5kozg@mail.gmail.com>
<3783090.1635111977@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmobQxeGVtgxQz_OxdgCO4r=Tb2SaCh9FJ8Dxjaq9DxHH_g@mail.gmail.com>
<3883429.1635171820@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoYF2xUB=witcYipb6nriLGN48463RpS6v1mhGA_whLNMg@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:23 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Roughly speaking, I think the policy should be "no feature bug fixes,
>> not even security fixes, for EOL'd branches; only fixes that are
>> minimally necessary to make it build on newer platforms". And
>> I want to have a sunset provision even for that. Fixing every branch
>> forevermore doesn't scale.
> Sure, but you can ameliorate that a lot by just saying it's something
> people have the *option* to do, not something anybody is *expected* to
> do. I agree it's best if we continue to discourage back-patching bug
> fixes into supported branches, but I also think we don't need to be
> too stringent about this.
Actually, I think we do. If I want to test against 7.4, ISTM I want
to test against the last released 7.4 version, not something with
arbitrary later changes. Otherwise, what exactly is the point?
>> In principle we might just need to add resurrected branches back to
>> the branches_to_build list. Given my view of what the back-patching
>> policy ought to be, a new build in an old branch might only be
>> required a couple of times a year, which would not be an undue
>> investment of buildfarm resources.
> I suppose it would be useful if we had the ability to do new runs only
> when the source code has changed...
Uh, don't we have that already? I know you can configure a buildfarm
animal to force a run at least every-so-often, but it's not required,
and I don't think it's even the default.
regards, tom lane
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, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andrew@dunslane.net, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, andres@anarazel.de
Subject: Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions
In-Reply-To: <3888809.1635174042@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