From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Cramer <davecramer(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/R regression on windows, but not linux with master. |
Date: | 2021-04-11 16:55:08 |
Message-ID: | 3492e360-d198-b525-6ae7-05a8d098b050@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/11/21 12:51 PM, Dave Cramer wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 at 12:43, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
> <mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com <mailto:mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>> writes:
> >> Would an equivalent "PGWARNING" be something we are open to adding and
> >> back-patching?
>
> > It's not real obvious how pl/r could solve this in a reliable way
> > otherwise, so adding that would be OK with me, but I wonder whether
> > back-patching is going to help you any. You'd still need to compile
> > against older headers I should think. So I'd suggest
> > (1) add PGWARNING in HEAD only
>
> Concretely, maybe like the attached?
>
>
> +1 from me.
> I especially like the changes to the comments as it's more apparent what they
> should be used for.
+1
Looks great to me.
Joe
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure Enterprises
Consulting, Training, & Open Source Development
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-04-11 17:01:18 | Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-04-11 16:54:45 | Possible SSI bug in heap_update |