Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11071.933345256@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: [PORTS] RedHat6.0 & Alpha
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
[ Sorry for not getting in on the fun earlier, but I'm not subscribed to pgsql-ports, so I had no idea this discussion was going on over there. ] Bruce wrote yesterday: > My recommendation(hold on to your seats) is to take the current cvs > tree, patch it with Uncle George's patches and any others needed, and > release a 6.5.2 release that addresses alpha. We can back-patch 6.5.2, > but there is really no reason to do that. There is really nothing > 'special' in the current tree. In fact, the most risky of them are the > alpha ones, I have to disagree. I've already committed a ton of parser and optimizer changes, which are far too unproven to call 6.5.2. If there is a 6.5.2 it *must* be as small as possible a diff from 6.5.1, not something based on the current tree. I have not seen the proposed Alpha patches, but I gather they include diffs to get rid of the "fmgr calls not passing char and short parameters properly" problem, which we know also exists on PPC and perhaps some other architectures. That strikes me as being a fairly major problem that can't really be fixed in 6.5.* --- the diffs would certainly be extensive, and would they have gotten enough testing to risk being put into a patch release? I certainly would not trust them without testing on multiple architectures... (BTW, you may recall that I have a proposal on the table to fix the parameter problem via a wholesale revision of the fmgr interface. If we go that route, uglifying the code by changing chars and shorts to Datum will be work that'll have to be undone later.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: