Re: What about Perl autodie?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: What about Perl autodie? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3f92e258-7c20-4e0a-8805-bfbafb63a5f3@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: What about Perl autodie? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: What about Perl autodie?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08.02.24 07:03, Tom Lane wrote: > John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 11:52 PM Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids@gmail.com> wrote: >>> No drawbacks. I've been using it heavily for many, many years. Came out in 5.10.1, >>> which should be available everywhere at this point (2009 was the year of release) > >> We moved our minimum to 5.14 fairly recently, so we're good on that point. > > Yeah, but only recently. I'm a little worried about the value of this > change relative to the amount of code churn involved, and more to the > point I worry about the risk of future back-patches injecting bad code > into back branches that don't use autodie. > > (Back-patching the use of autodie doesn't seem feasible, since before > v16 we supported perl 5.8.something.) Yeah, good points. I suppose we could start using it for completely new scripts.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: