| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |
| Date: | 2016-12-07 05:13:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20161207.141341.354688247472486759.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Potential risks involving minor upgrades are far higher than the risks
> involved by systemd, so -1 for a backpatch seen from here.
As long as we would have a compile time switch to enable/disable the
back-patched feature, it seems it would be acceptable. In the worst
case, the back-patching could bring disasters, but in that case
packagers could turn off the switch and ship updated version of
packages.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Seltenreich | 2016-12-07 05:35:28 | Short reads in hash indexes (was: [sqlsmith] Failed assertion in _hash_splitbucket_guts) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-07 04:57:05 | Re: Back-patch use of unnamed POSIX semaphores for Linux? |