Added to TODO:
o Remove pre-7.3 pg_dump code that assumes pg_depend does not exit
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server de
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:07, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
>>> support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
>>> instituting tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 12:00:51 -0800
"Andrew Hammond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> software. I doubt there are any plans to trim the 7.3 branch from CVS
> and I imagine that the community will be happy to work with anyone
Considering we still have Pos
On Nov 29, 2007 11:11 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:07, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
> >>> support for old r
+1
On Nov 29, 2007 4:09 AM, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:37:04 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >> Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addend
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 23:53:14 -0500 Robert Treat wrote:
> I also think we should be a bit more generous on the EOL notice. Saying one
> more
> update after 8.3 is akin to giving a 1 month EOL notice; not friendly at all
> imo. Set it for July 2008 and I think you have given plenty of notice (and
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:37:04 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release
> >> of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported.
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server depends on
>> whether there are any clients out there which use it which is harder to
>> determine and not affected by whether Postgres 7.3 is still around.
>
> Right.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:30:55 +
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandru Cârstoiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no
> > need to support v2 in future database versions (s
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Whether there's any need to support the old protocol in the server depends on
> whether there are any clients out there which use it which is harder to
> determine and not affected by whether Postgres 7.3 is still around.
Right. There's really not much
On Wednesday 28 November 2007, Gregory Stark wrote:
> > This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to
> > support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would
> > simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too.
>
> I think the second half of this is correct.
Alexandru Cârstoiu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This tells me that the v3 protocol appeared at 7.4, so there's no need to
> support v2 in future database versions (starting with 8.3?). It would
> simplify code in interfaces like JDBC too.
I think the second half of this is correct. There would
I'm not a developper, but it occured to me that you should consider dropping
the support for client-server wire protocol v2.
I quote a comment I found in JDBC driver's code:
// NOTE: To simplify this code, it is assumed that if we are
// using the V3 protocol, then the database i
I'm not a developper, but it occured to me that you should consider dropping
the support for client-server wire protocol v2.
I quote a comment I found in JDBC driver's code:
// NOTE: To simplify this code, it is assumed that if we are
// using the V3 protocol, then the database i
Tom Lane napsal(a):
Comments, opinions?
Is it time to remove old communication protocol support and cleanup code in 8.4?
Zdenek
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:26 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I assume you no longer need to maintain it for Redhat then?
>
> Well, I still do, nominally, but RHEL-3 is in maintenance mode
> (meaning no more scheduled updates). It would take a fairly serious
> bug to get Red Hat's attention to the
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 23:53 -0500, Robert Treat wrote:
> I also think we should be a bit more generous on the EOL notice.
> Saying one more update after 8.3 is akin to giving a 1 month EOL
> notice; not friendly at all imo. Set it for July 2008 and I think you
> have given plenty of notice (a
On Tuesday 27 November 2007 15:07, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
> > support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
> > instituting that?
> >
> > I see that t
Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
instituting that?
The community consensus I recall was three versions only. Anything beyond
that would be up to the
"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release
>> of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported.
> I know at least one customer who is using RHEL-3 and PG 7.3
Josh Berkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
>> support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
>> instituting that?
> The community consensus I recall was three versions only. Anything beyond
> that woul
Tom,
> There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
> support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
> instituting that?
The community consensus I recall was three versions only. Anything beyond
that would be up to the vendors.
Mind you, I don'
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:08:58 -0800 Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Release 7.3.21 with and EOL addendum :). E.g; this is the last release
> of 7.3 and 7.3 is now considered unsupported.
I know at least one customer who is using RHEL-3 and PG 7.3 on dozens
machines worldwide. Yes, they are moving to 8.2
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
> support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
> instituting that?
>
> I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE
> bra
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE
>>> branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the
>>> actual policy should be "only one more update af
> At some point back, I seem to recall the reason for bothering
> to backpatch to 7.3 is that it had to be maintained for
> RedHat anyway, so things might as well be backpatched? If
> that requirements is gone, I think it's time to drop it.
+1
> And +1 on pushing out one final "end of the tr
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE
>> branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just leaving those to rot, maybe the
>> actual policy should be "only one more update after 8.3 comes out".
>
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 14:02 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> By chance I happened to notice in the release notes
>
> Release 7.3
> Release date: 2002-11-27
>
> Man, it feels like a long time since that came out...
>
> There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
> support for o
> --- Original Message ---
> From: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Sent: 27/11/07, 19:02:24
> Subject: [HACKERS] PG 7.3 is five years old today
>
> I see that there are two or three minor bug fixes in the REL7_3_STABLE
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:02:24 -0500
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By chance I happened to notice in the release notes
>
> Release 7.3
> Release date: 2002-11-27
>
> Man, it feels like a long time since that came out...
5 years was a long tim
By chance I happened to notice in the release notes
Release 7.3
Release date: 2002-11-27
Man, it feels like a long time since that came out...
There has been some discussion of making a project policy of dropping
support for old releases after five years. Should we consider formally
instituting
31 matches
Mail list logo
