Prev: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add _PG_init to PL language handler documentation
Next: tsvector pg_stats seems quite a bit off.
From: Mike Fowler on 25 May 2010 13:09
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Mike Fowler <mike(a)mlfowler.com> wrote:
>
>> Erik Rijkers wrote:
>>
>>> libxml2.x86_64 2.6.26-2.1.2.8 installed
>>> libxml2-devel.x86_64 2.6.26-2.1.2.8 installed
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks for testing my patch Erik. It turns out I've got libxml2 installed at
>> version 2.7.5. Searching the gnome mailing lists, it turns out
>> xmlXPathCompiledEvalToBoolean was added (unbelievably) in the very next
>> version from yours, 2.6.27 (see:
>> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2006-October/msg00119.html).
>>
>
> We're unlikely to accept this patch if it changes the minimum version
> of libxml2 required to compile PostgreSQL

Why? 2.6.27 is almost 4 years old.

I realise that my patch didn't update configure and configure.in, and
indeed I didn't think of it when I responded to Erik (I'm too used to
the Java world where people manage their own dependencies). I've now
attached the updated patch which ups the check from version 2.6.23 to
2.6.27.

Regards,

--
Mike Fowler
Registered Linux user: 379787

From: Michael Tharp on 25 May 2010 13:53
On 05/25/2010 01:09 PM, Mike Fowler wrote:
> Why? 2.6.27 is almost 4 years old.

RHEL 5 ships with 2.6.26. I imagine that supporting it is very
desirable, regardless of its age, since that is unfortunately still the
latest version of RHEL.

-- m. tharp

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

From: Andrew Dunstan on 25 May 2010 14:02


Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Mike Fowler <mike(a)mlfowler.com> wrote:
>
>>> We're unlikely to accept this patch if it changes the minimum version
>>> of libxml2 required to compile PostgreSQL
>>>
>> Why? 2.6.27 is almost 4 years old.
>>
>
> Because we work hard to minimize our dependencies and make them as
> non-onerous as possible.
>
> At a minimum, I think it's fair to say that the burden is on you to
> justify what it's worth bumping the version number. If there is some
> major speed or performance advantage to using the newer API, maybe
> we'll consider it. But if it's just a few extra lines of code to work
> around it, then it's better to write those extra lines of code rather
> than potentially force users to upgrade packages they're otherwise
> happy with.
>
>

The real issue is what's going to be available on most of the platforms
we build on. Unfortunately, 2.6.26 is what's on my CentOS 5.4 boxes, for
example. I'm sure we don't want to make 9.1 not buildable with the
installed libraries on still fairly current RedHat-derived platforms.

cheers

andrew

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Add _PG_init to PL language handler documentation
Next: tsvector pg_stats seems quite a bit off.