From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: PL_stashcache, or, what's our minimum Perl version?
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <20540.1501210115@sss.pgh.pa.us> <24665.1501214288@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <fd90cca4-db1c-b760-dd17-eafa304020d6@2ndQuadrant.com>
Message-ID: <a597cbfe-c214-1313-950d-3f8a8173e950@2ndQuadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 15:01:11 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <fd90cca4-db1c-b760-dd17-eafa304020d6@2ndQuadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-MW
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


On 07/28/2017 08:22 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 07/27/2017 11:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I kinda suspect we're not actively testing non-MULTIPLICITY builds
>> either.  The 5.8.7 test I just ran was with a non-MULTIPLICITY build,
>> so the case doesn't seem actively broken, but I doubt there is any
>> buildfarm coverage.  I wonder if it'd be worth getting the buildfarm
>> to log the output of "perl -V" so we could get a clearer picture
>> of what's being tested.
>>
> It's quite possible, but in general it will need a new buildfarm client release. If you choose a few possibly critical animals we can ask the owners to apply a fairly simple patch.


Looks like this, bit it's rather tedious. I think I might back it out. I
guess I could also write it to a log file, if we really think we need it.

<https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=crake&dt=2017-07-28%2018%3A37%3A19>

cheers

andrew

-- 
Andrew Dunstan                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers