Mike Fowler wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Mike Fowler <m...@mlfowler.com> wrote: > >> > >>>> We're unlikely to accept this patch if it changes the minimum version > >>>> of libxml2 required to compile PostgreSQL > >>>> > >>> Why? 2.6.27 is almost 4 years old. > >> At a minimum, I think it's fair to say that the burden is on you to > >> justify what it's worth bumping the version number. > >> > > > > Yes. Increasing the minimum required version of some library is a Big > > Deal, we don't do it on a whim. And we definitely don't do it just > > because it's old. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > > > OK, I consider myself suitably educated/chastised. I now understand why > a version bump is such a big deal. Your objections are all reasonable, I > suppose I'm just used to living on the bleeding edge of everything. > Consequently I have changed the code to produce the same result in a > different way without using the new function. I've down-graded my > version to 2.6.26 and it all compiles cleanly. Please find attached my > revised patch, and thanks all for your advise.
FYI, it is often good to add a comment in the C code about why you didn't use the new XML function so if the issue comes up again, we know why, and in 10 years, we can use it. ;-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
