On 12/2/21 12:30, Tom Lane wrote: > >> In practice, the effort can focus on keeping the most recent cutoff >> release buildable. So in the above example, we really only need to >> keep PG >=9.2 buildable to support ongoing development. The chances >> that some needs to touch code pertaining to older versions in >> backbranches is lower, so those really would need to be dealt with >> very rarely. > OK. Also, when you do need to check that, there are often other ways > than rebuilding the old branch on modern platforms --- people may > well have still-executable builds laying about, even if rebuilding > from source would be problematic. > >
I have a very old fedora instance where I can build every release back to 7.2 :-) And with only slight massaging for the very old releases, these builds run on my Fedora 34 development system. Certainly 8.2 and up wouldn't be a problem. Currently I have only tested building without any extra libraries/PLs, but I can look at other combinations. So, long story short this is fairly doable at least in some environments. This provides a good use case for the work I have been doing on backwards compatibility of the TAP framework. I need to get back to that now that the great module namespace adjustment has settled down. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
