Re: pg18 patch: separate package for llvm/jit
От | Jeremy Schneider |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg18 patch: separate package for llvm/jit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20250301165149.40e250b5@ardentperf.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg18 patch: separate package for llvm/jit (Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg18 patch: separate package for llvm/jit
|
Список | pgsql-pkg-debian |
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 16:02:42 +0100 Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote: > Re: Jeremy Schneider > > I would like to propose this change for Postgres 18. > > Hi, > > I committed a change to the PG18 packaging that implements that split. > The new package is called postgresql-18-jit. wow!! i did not expect this 🙂 > There is more work to do on each of the extension packages currently > depending on "postgresql-18-jit-llvm (= llvmversion)", that needs to > be converted to "Breaks: postgresql-18-jit-llvm (<< llvmversion)". > (This is also the reason the jit package is not called like that > because the version number there is not the PG version number.) > > This will likely happen when extensions are moved to PG18 in > September. i'll take a look and learn a bit more about it. one question - the commit message says "Closes: #927182" and i'm curious what that number is a reference to? It doesn't seem to be an issue or PR that I found on salsa.debian.org but maybe I haven't looked in the right place yet. > I'm unsure if the split should be backported to PG 17 and earlier > since it will affect production systems in some way. FWIW, i'm not a debian packaging expert but i was assuming this would not be backported. i don't think we'd want existing installation scripts to change behavior on a postgres minor update (eg. newly provisioned servers no longer getting JIT installed by default, when previously provisioned servers of the same major version have it) -Jeremy
В списке pgsql-pkg-debian по дате отправления: