On Mar 8, 2010, at 9:14 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > If those aren't versions that are likely to be in wide use, no objection > to that.
Yes, those are a series of releases in the last couple of months that had one level of brokenness or another I'm going to test 2.25 today. > I'm just concerned about arbitrarily breaking existing > installations. I note that Fedora 11 and OS X 10.6.2 are providing Safe > 2.12, which means the proposed patch would break plperl on every machine > I have, without easy recourse --- I am not likely to install a private > version of Safe under either OS, and I doubt many other PG users would > wish to either. The net effect would be to prevent PG users from > upgrading until the OS vendors get around to issuing new versions, > which is not helpful. Agreed, older ones should be allowed; the Perl community should recommend that everyone upgrade to get improved security, but it shouldn't be required. > Particularly if the vendor chooses to back-patch > Safe security fixes without bumping the visible version number, as is > not unlikely for Red Hat in particular. This is why I hate packaging systems. Frankly, Red Hat's Perl has been consistently broken for close to a decade, mainly because of patching practices such as this. Best, David -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
