Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop?
От | Alexander Lakhin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2fd6d740-2b87-3501-1070-86821e8b1ba1@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why is citext/regress failing on hamerkop? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
14.05.2024 17:38, Tom Lane wrote: > As I mentioned in our off-list discussion, I have a lingering feeling > that this v14 commit could be affecting the results somehow: > > Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> > Branch: master Release: REL_14_BR [d5a9a661f] 2020-10-18 12:56:43 -0400 > > Update the Winsock API version requested by libpq. > > According to Microsoft's documentation, 2.2 has been the current > version since Windows 98 or so. Moreover, that's what the Postgres > backend has been requesting since 2004 (cf commit 4cdf51e64). > So there seems no reason for libpq to keep asking for 1.1. > > I didn't believe at the time that that'd have any noticeable effect, > but maybe it somehow made Winsock play a bit nicer with the GSS > support? Yes, probably, but may be not nicer, as the test duration increased? Still I can't see the difference locally to check that commit. Will try other VMs/configurations, maybe I could find a missing factor... Best regards, Alexander
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: