| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: mingw configure failure workaround |
| Date: | 2004-05-01 21:43:06 |
| Message-ID: | 16508.1083447786@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The real issue in my mind is why is "ln" unreliable in mingw? I cannot
>> see any point in a retry kluge when we do not know what's really going
>> on.
> I'm still trying to find out. But I don't see why this is different from
> the kludge we already have for unlink, and that one is right inside
> postgresql.
It's different because we know why we need that one: we understand the
cause of the behavior and we therefore can have some confidence that the
kluge will fix it (or not, as the case may be). I have zero confidence
in looping five times around an "ln" call.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-01 21:52:45 | Re: Plan for feature freeze? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-05-01 21:39:47 | Re: Plan for feature freeze? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-05-01 22:55:31 | Re: mingw configure failure workaround |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-05-01 21:00:32 | Re: mingw configure failure workaround |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-05-01 21:58:36 | Re: FW: Timezone library |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-05-01 21:00:32 | Re: mingw configure failure workaround |