From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching? |
Date: | 2005-06-26 17:14:11 |
Message-ID: | 42BEE263.60403@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> However, we cannot
>backpatch the change without forcing initdb (or at least reindex of
>tsearch2 indexes), even on architectures that are not currently broken.
>So I'm afraid penguin is out of luck --- the 8.0 branch has to stay
>the way it is.
>
>
>
>
With that exception, we now have only one machine marked active that has
consistently failed on HEAD or REL8_0_STABLE: osprey (NetBSD 2.0 gcc
3.3.3 m68k)
I have asked its owner to look into what the problems might be.
I am about to start publishing owner email addresses (in a hard to
harvest way) so that hackers can contact them directly about problems
seen on their machines. This was raised about a week ago and nobody has
raised an objection.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-06-26 17:34:16 | Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-06-26 15:57:57 | Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity |