On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:14, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes: >> On Mar 8, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> #3 is still an absolute nonstarter, especially for a patch that we'd >>> wish to backpatch. > >> You're at least going to want to exclude Safe 2.20 - 2.23, IIUC. > > If those aren't versions that are likely to be in wide use, no objection > to that. I'm just concerned about arbitrarily breaking existing > installations.
Here are a few version numbers for released perls: perl | safe version 5.8.8 | 2.12 5.8.9 | 2.16 5.10.0 | 2.12 5.10.1 | 2.18 5.12 looks like it will release with > 2.25, 5.10.2 if it ever gets released is currently at 2.18, 5.8.10 does not even seem to be on the horizon. So unless you installed a private version or your distro is providing updates (I looked at: arch, debian, fedora and openbsd. And they don't seem to.) it seems unlikely to see >2.18 in the wild. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers