From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: buildfarm breakage |
Date: | 2010-02-09 16:14:57 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c1002090814g12ba7f15h710236d994399692@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 17:11, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> Here's a patch that "fixes" this. I put it locally for the radius
>> authentication for now, since we don't use this anywhere else. Should
>> we put this in /port/ somewhere, or is this good for now?
>
> How about dropping it in src/backend/port/win32/mingwcompat.c ?
Oh, meh. I had forgotten we had that file :-)
Thanks for the reminder, will verify tonight that it still works after
I do that.
> The advantage of putting it in src/port/ is that it would possibly
> help client-side code sometime in future. But what seems more likely
> to happen is that the mingw people will fix their oversight, and
> then we'd be risking link conflicts, which will be harder to fix on
> the client side. So I'm inclined to not go there as long as we
> don't actually need it on client side. But putting mingw hacks
> in a mingw-specific place seems a good idea.
yeah, agreed.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Kupershmidt | 2010-02-09 16:16:17 | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-09 16:14:06 | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |