Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?
От | Sascha Schumann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19990208011519.A10817@schell.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 07, 1999 at 05:51:08PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes: > > Don't remember what's all fixed between v6.4.2 and now. > > Does anyone else know about bugs that are still in the REL6_4 > > branch and could be fixed without adding features? > > I just checked in the ". conftest.sh" -> ". ./conftest.sh" fix to > configure, which several people have complained of (6.4.2 fails > if "." is not in your PATH at configure time). > > We have to be pretty careful with these back-rev patches, since they > typically aren't going to get much testing in the back version's > CVS tree. So I'm leery of applying anything that hasn't been tested > for a while in the development branch. > > For example, the patch I just applied to CURRENT to link libpgtcl.so > with -lcrypt perhaps ought to go into REL6_4 --- but I'm afraid to do > that until we verify that it works on a variety of platforms. It fixes > things on teo's Linux box but I worry that it might actually break things > elsewhere. Just a short note: -lcrypt is available on glibc 2 systems only. And yes please release a 6.4.3. As a administrator of some sites which rely on PostgreSQL heavily I would never use a zero-numbered version. The risk is just too high and too unforseeable. An example: Before 6.4, we used a table called "user" without any problems. Unfortunately, this was not possible in 6.4.x, because it became a reserved keyword there. Having one release together with maintenance updates minimizes the risk of getting features you don't want. -- Regards, Sascha Schumann| Consultant | finger sas@schell.de | forPGP public key
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: