On 7/16/20 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:45:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Maybe we should do some pro-active testing, rather than just waiting for >>> 2.70 to get dropped on us? God knows how long it will be until 2.71. >> Sounds good. A cheap option would be to regenerate with 2.70, push that on a >> Friday night to see what the buildfarm thinks, and revert it on Sunday night. > We'd have to rename configure.in as per $subject; but AFAIK that works > with extant autoconf, so we could just do it and leave it that way, > figuring that it'll have to happen eventually.
Yeah, let's just do that forthwith. > > More ambitiously, we could just adopt 2.69b in HEAD and see what happens, > planning to revert only if things break. The cost to that is that > committers who want to commit configure.ac changes would have to install > 2.69b. But they'd be having to install 2.70 whenever we move to that, > anyway, so I'm not sure that's a big cost. > > I don't think it's a big cost. IIRC for quite some years we had to keep 2 or 3 versions of autoconf to cover all the live branches. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
