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
+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 addendum :). E.g; this
-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
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 releases after
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 that?
...
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
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
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'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
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 be
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. There
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 to
-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 (starting
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. There's
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.
I know at
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
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
-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 time ago
--- 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
branch since 7.3.20. Rather than just
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.
I assume you no
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 tree
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 old
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 after 8.3 comes out.
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
branch
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
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't
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 would be up
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 on
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
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 there are
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 (and
31 matches
Mail list logo
