| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, Owais Khan <owais(dot)khan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hamid Quddus <hamid(dot)quddus(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: _USE_32BIT_TIME_T Patch |
| Date: | 2012-09-01 00:35:48 |
| Message-ID: | 50415864.9080103@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/31/2012 06:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> I'm not sure what we need to do to progress on this, especially re the
>> back branches.
> The calendar might help us here. 9.2 is due to wrap next week, but it
> will likely be a couple of months before we contemplate new back-branch
> releases. So we could push a fix that we don't have 100% confidence in,
> knowing that there is time to recover before it will ship in any of the
> proven branches. Releasing it in 9.2.0 will afford an opportunity for
> more testing than we can do by ourselves.
>
> That's not to take anything away from the fact that we ought to test as
> many cases as we can now. But we do have some margin for error.
>
>
OK, so I have tested it on my 32bit setup and it's working, so I'm going
to commit this for HEAD/9.2 now, so we can get that wider testing.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-09-01 02:20:44 | Re: effective_io_concurrency |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-08-31 22:39:27 | Re: _USE_32BIT_TIME_T Patch |