| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_archivecleanup bug |
| Date: | 2014-03-18 14:03:46 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ_gfhCnZKO24e=VD14Ou-Lu65sTHY-pndW9ONsEHvn8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Very good point. I have modified the patch to add this block in all
>> cases where it was missing. I started to wonder about the comment and
>> if the Mingw fix was released. Based on some research, I see this as
>> fixed in mingw-runtime-3.2, released 2003-10-10. That's pretty old.
>
> Yeah. I would vote for removing that code in all branches. There is no
> reason to suppose somebody is going to install 8.4.22 on a machine that
> they haven't updated mingw on since 2003. Or, if you prefer, just remove
> it in HEAD --- but going around and *adding* more copies seems like
> make-work. The fact that we've not heard complaints about the omissions
> is good evidence that nobody's using the buggy mingw versions anymore.
I don't think it is. Right now we're not checking errno *at all* in a
bunch of these places, so we're sure not going to get complaints about
doing it incorrectly in those places. Or do I need more caffeine?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-03-18 14:06:51 | Re: pg_archivecleanup bug |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-03-18 14:00:34 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Make it easy to detach completely from shared memory. |