> On Dec 7, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I'm not entirely following ... are you suggesting that each released minor > version needs to be kept buildable separately? No. I'm just wondering if we want to share the product of such efforts if anybody (me, for instance) volunteers to do it for some subset of minor releases. For my heap corruption checking work, I might want to be able to build a small number of old minor releases that I know had corruption bugs. — Mark Dilger EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions Robert Haas
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions Robert Haas
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Robert Haas
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Mark Dilger
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Mark Dilger
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Andrew Dunstan
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versions Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Andrew Dunstan
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Robert Haas
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Tom Lane
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Justin Pryzby
- Re: pg_dump versus ancient server versio... Tom Lane