From: | Leon <leon(at)udmnet(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |
Date: | 1999-08-25 16:35:10 |
Message-ID: | 37C41B3E.90031A6D@udmnet.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> Never did v6.5.1...but I have no problem with starting to do this on minor
> releases to, since...
>
> Could someone try out the following patch?
>
> ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/postgresql-6.5-6.5.x.patch.gz
>
> It is a patch against v6.5 that will bring it up to the most stable
> version *if* it worked right. Reading through the patch, everything looks
> good, but...
Great idea! It will be good practice - to have simply patches for
minor versions. But this is definitely not a patch for 6.5.0, but
some other version. Unfortunately I lost .tar.gz 6.5.0 distribution,
but I am pretty sure that my sources were intact. There were a lot of
hunks failed, and patched version failed to compile.
Isn't is the right way to do a patch: take old distribution
and simply make a diff against new tree? Seems that current
patch isn't done that way. Included here is patch log file
for your reference.
--
Leon.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
results.gz | application/octet-stream | 3.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lori Allen | 1999-08-25 17:40:26 | stuck spinlock |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-25 15:02:45 | Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size |