Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 10:50:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Ummm ... aren't you going to get some cast-away-const warnings now?
> Let me see.. The function signatures we use have been visibly changed
> in 9eb9c932, which comes down to a point between 2.2.2 and 2.3, and
> there are two of them we care about, both use now "const char *":
> - security_check_context_raw()
> - security_compute_create_name_raw()
OK, it's all good then.
> Based on this information, what if we increased the minimum support to
> 2.3 then? That's a release from 2014, and maintaining such legacy
> code does not seem much worth the effort IMO.
Well, "you get a compiler warning" isn't a reason to consider the version
unsupported. There are probably going to be a few other warnings you get
when building on an ancient platform --- as long as it works, I think
we're fine. So based on this, no objection, and I think no need to
change our statement about what's supported.
regards, tom lane
