On 22/08/12 18:20, Christophe Garault wrote: > On 22/08/2012 17:52, Stevan Bajić wrote : >> Is there any reason stopping you from using 3.10.2? > Thanks for answering Stephan, > > what refrains me from using the lastest version, is that it's packaged > in Debian Sid only which I don't whant to play with (even if I could > apt-pin this one only) > I could also consider compiling it myself, which I didn't after reading > the Changelog and decided to stay with 3.10.1 > But believe me, I'm ready to dig very deeply in order to get dspam > working... ;)
The CHANGELOG says one thing about postgresql between 3.10.1 and 3.10.2: [20110930:2055] sbajic: Remove support for PostgreSQL < 8.1.0 (EOL) Unfortunately this does not describe the fact that this change also included (improved) support for postgresql 9.1 So if dspam + postgresql give query errors, then either: - use dspam 3.10.2 + postgres 9.1 - use dspam 3.10.1 + postgres <=9.0 - modify postgres 9.1 postgresql.conf: set standard_conforming_strings=off Also see: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29635988 http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/runtime-config-compatible.html -- Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Dspam-devel mailing list Dspam-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dspam-devel
