Bruce Momjian <> writes:
> On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 08:45:10PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I'm not so much opposed to removing the port.  I am more concerned about
>> the manner in which it was done.  The other ports I removed were known
>> to not work anyway, for years, and there were at least several days of
>> discussion.  The bsdi case was removing a working port with less than 24
>> hours notice.

What's the grounds for asserting they were known not to work?  Not
actual testing, I assume.

> Basically, we have beta next week so I wanted to do it before then, and
> I have my head down doing the release notes, so I wanted to do it before
> I started that too.  I kind of knew the bsdi answer before I even asked.

> If you are objecting to me short-circuiting this, I will revert the
> patch.  If we can't short-circuiting thinks when we already know the
> answer, everyone's work will take more time.

Leave it as-is.  I agree with the upthread comment that we can revert
the patch during beta (or even later than that), if anyone complains.
Furthermore, I would want to insist that a complainer provide a
buildfarm member as the price of us continuing to support an old
uncommon platform.  Otherwise the apparent support is hollow.  The BSDI
port was viable for us to support as long as Bruce was using it daily,
but with that gone, we need somebody else to be testing it.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to