Hi, On Monday 21 December 2009 02:23:39 Robert Haas wrote: > A more important point is whether we really need to make this > dependent on Perl 5.6 or later. What features are we using here that > actually require Perl 5.6? I suspect the answer is "none, but we > don't like writing the code in a way that is backward compatible to > crufty, ancient versions of Perl", to which my response is "get over > it". :-) I always use the three-argument form of open() in all new > code, but for fixed strings the two-argument form is just as good and > has been supported for far longer. Any suggestions that we should > prefer clean code over portability are, in my opinion, non-starters. I dont see a platform without perl 5.6 where a new enough flex/bison is available...
Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
