On 7/16/20 11:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 09:45:54AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Maybe we should do some pro-active testing, rather than just waiting for
>>> 2.70 to get dropped on us? God knows how long it will be until 2.71.
>> Sounds good. A cheap option would be to regenerate with 2.70, push that on a
>> Friday night to see what the buildfarm thinks, and revert it on Sunday night.
> We'd have to rename configure.in as per $subject; but AFAIK that works
> with extant autoconf, so we could just do it and leave it that way,
> figuring that it'll have to happen eventually.
Yeah, let's just do that forthwith.
>
> More ambitiously, we could just adopt 2.69b in HEAD and see what happens,
> planning to revert only if things break. The cost to that is that
> committers who want to commit configure.ac changes would have to install
> 2.69b. But they'd be having to install 2.70 whenever we move to that,
> anyway, so I'm not sure that's a big cost.
>
>
I don't think it's a big cost. IIRC for quite some years we had to keep
2 or 3 versions of autoconf to cover all the live branches.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services