| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows? |
| Date: | 2020-07-09 19:36:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1870287.1594323370@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Cool, I'll go try changing all those conditions to use the msys test.
OK, that worked: all four relevant buildfarm members are now showing
the expected test failure. So I'll go fix the original bug.
Should we consider back-patching the CRLF filtering changes, ie
91bdf499b + ffb4cee43? It's not really necessary perhaps, but
I dislike situations where the "same" test on different branches is
testing different things. Seems like a recipe for future surprises.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-07-09 20:11:08 | Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows? |
| Previous Message | Jeremy Schneider | 2020-07-09 16:59:11 | Re: Efficiently advancing a sequence without risking it going backwards. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-07-09 20:11:08 | Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows? |
| Previous Message | Grigory Smolkin | 2020-07-09 19:16:37 | Re: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!? |