Re: [HACKERS] template/alpha_cc

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] template/alpha_cc
Date: 1999-02-04 01:01:42
Message-ID: 199902040101.KAA03371@srapc451.sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> > src/template/alpha_cc seems missing in 6.4.2 but does exist in current.
>> > What about 6.4_REL? I belive that file should exist in any version of
>> > source tree.
>>
>> $ cvs log alpha_cc
>>
>> RCS file: /usr/local/cvsroot/pgsql/src/template/alpha_cc,v
>> Working file: alpha_cc
>> head: 1.1
>> branch:
>> locks: strict
>> access list:
>> symbolic names:
>> keyword substitution: kv
>> total revisions: 1; selected revisions: 1
>> description:
>> ----------------------------
>> revision 1.1
>> date: 1998/12/18 07:08:02; author: momjian; state: Exp;
>> etc etc...
>>
>> There's no REL6_4 tag, therefore this file does not exist as far as
>> the 6.4.* branch is concerned. (Same deal as with discussion of
>> vacuumdb a day or two ago.) Bruce could've applied a REL6_4 tag to
>> the file when he created it, but did not.
>>
>> Do we want to continue updating the REL6_4 branch for stuff like this?
>> Or is it time to declare 6.4.2 the last of that branch and press forward
>> with 6.5 beta test?
>
>Nothing new gets added to the REL6_4 branch, period. Personally, there
>also will never be a v6.4.3, so the REL6_4 branch effectively died the day
>v6.4.2 was released...

That's fine. I'm just curious why that file once existed in 6.4,
vanished in 6.4.2, then appears in current.
--
Tatsuo Ishii

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-02-04 02:12:55 cleanup of optimizer
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-02-03 21:27:27 Re: [GENERAL] Cost: Big Tables vs. Organized Separation of Data