Tim Bunce <tim.bu...@pobox.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 01:45:45PM -0800, David E. Wheeler wrote: >> On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> One of the things on my to-do list for today is to make configure reject >>> Perl versions less than $TBD. I thought we had agreed a week or so back >>> that 5.8 was the lowest safe version because of utf8 and other >>> considerations. >> >> +1, and 5.8.3 at a minimum for utf8 stuff, 5.8.8 much much better.
> I think we said 5.8.1 at the time, but 5.8.3 sounds good to me. > There would be _very_ few places using < 5.8.6. I went with 5.8 as the cutoff, for a couple of reasons: we're not in the business of telling people they ought to be up-to-date, but only of rejecting versions that demonstrably fail badly; and I found out that older versions of awk are not sufficiently competent with && and || to code a more complex test properly :-(. A version check that doesn't actually do what it claims to is worse than useless, and old buggy awk is exactly what you'd expect to find on a box with old buggy perl. (It's also worth noting that the perl version seen at configure time is not necessarily that seen at runtime, anyway, so there's not a lot of point in getting too finicky here.) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers