Re: plpython vs _POSIX_C_SOURCE

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: plpython vs _POSIX_C_SOURCE
Date: 2023-01-25 08:52:23
Message-ID: 20230125085223.iu6vmn7ornq3x34f@awork3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2023-01-24 23:37:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Patches attached.
>
> +1 for 0001.

Cool, will push tomorrow.

> I'm still nervous about 0002. However, maybe the cases that we had trouble
> with are legacy issues that nobody cares about anymore in 2023. We can
> always look for another answer if we get complaints, I guess.

Yea, it's a patch that should be easily revertable, if it comes to that. I'll
add a note to the commit message about potentially needing to do that if
there's not easily addressed fallout.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aleksander Alekseev 2023-01-25 09:02:11 Re: to_hex() for negative inputs
Previous Message Maxim Orlov 2023-01-25 08:51:53 Re: old_snapshot_threshold bottleneck on replica