Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
От | Matt Miller |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1166475205.24308.281048787@webmail.messagingengine.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE
Re: 8.2.0 Tarball vs. REL8_2_0 vs. REL8_2_STABLE |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > The [pgcluster-1.7.0rc1-patch] patch applies to the 8.2.0 tarball ... > > However, the patch will not apply to cvs branch REL8_2_0. > > I've been told that the pgcluster patch patches some generated files > (parse.h and other apparently). Yes, I could not at first apply to REL8_2_0 because the patch file wanted to patch src/backend/parser/gram.c. At that point I started over with a fresh REL8_2_0, ran "./configure; make", and tried the patch again. That's when I got a bunch of failures and fuzz. The problem files are: src/backend/parser/gram.c src/backend/parser/parse.h src/interfaces/libpq/libpq.rc So, I suppose libpq.rc is a derived file, also? Now I have two questions. First, why does pgcluster patch derived files? Is this just sloppy/lazy technique, or could there be some deeper reason? I realize this is properly to be posed to the pgcluster folks, but they don't seem to be too responsive, at least not to their pgfoundry forums. Second, does it make sense that the derived files that rejected the patch would be so different between the 8.2.0 tarball and my REL8_2_0 build?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: