Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 6 May 2012 01:06, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we should err on the side of removing less rather than more.
>> It won't hurt anything much to leave these around for another few
>> years.
> I think it's better to force users of platforms like IRIX and BSD/OS,
> platforms which are obsolete according to any practical definition, to
> use earlier branches that presumably are known to have had a certain
> amount of testing.
If there are any such users, we should be trying to get them to provide
a buildfarm member, so that we can honestly say that the port works.
I see removal of the port files as a way to send an unmistakable signal
that we're not going to continue to guess about that. We can always put
back a given port if volunteers emerge to support it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
