Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eF5b2-00057N-BD for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:51:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eF5b1-0002Gy-Qb for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:51:47 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eF5b1-0002Go-LR for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:51:47 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1eF5ay-0008DZ-5L for pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 21:51:47 +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 vAFLpgdZ006476; Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:51:42 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Mark Dilger cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: Updated macOS start scripts In-reply-to: References: <31338.1510763554@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6D443E39-13C2-4185-9FE4-B5CB416AB06E@gmail.com> <21689.1510772433@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5974.1510781873@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Mark Dilger message dated "Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:40:38 -0800" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <6474.1510782702.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2017 16:51:42 -0500 Message-ID: <6475.1510782702@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Mark Dilger writes: > I am reasonably content with your earlier idea of not keeping support > for ancient versions of OS X, but if you want to do what you describe > above, I'd be happy to review that on my 10.6 box to verify that > everything works at least that far back. I don't have access to relevant, > pre-10.4 machines. IIRC, I already did test it on 10.6.8, but no harm in your double checking. regards, tom lane