On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 06:25:24PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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.
Yes, it was an odd port that probably would have been removed five years ago if I had not been using it, which I am no longer. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers