Re: Re: PATCH: The linker complains about the '-bundle_loader "../../src/backend/postgres"' against PostgreSQL 8.4 on OSX
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: PATCH: The linker complains about the '-bundle_loader "../../src/backend/postgres"' against PostgreSQL 8.4 on OSX |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+OCxoz8-Fdk6r_=qfOiy7GagvME795phV5PZWTce2kURzC9xg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: PATCH: The linker complains about the '-bundle_loader "../../src/backend/postgres"' against PostgreSQL 8.4 on OSX (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Re: PATCH: The linker complains about the '-bundle_loader
"../../src/backend/postgres"' against PostgreSQL 8.4 on OSX
|
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On 07.05.2012 13:39, Dave Page wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas >> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >>> for that matter. I'll fix this in git master. I consider the current tip >>> of >>> the old CVS repository (or the corresponding checkout from the git repo) >>> to >>> be the latest stable release, PostgreSQL one-click installers<= 9.1 can >>> continue to use that version. >> >> >> Can you create a "PRE-9_2" branch for the current architecture, and >> apply Ashesh's patch to that if you think it's a reasonable fix >> please? We can then move the older builds to that branch. Then the 9.2 >> changes can go on master. > > > By current architecture, do you mean what we had in the CVS, or as the code > stands in the current tip of the git repository? I agree we should create a > branch like that, but I want to make sure we agree on where it should be > branched off. I've rearranged and cleaned up the code quite extensively in > git master already, and I'm not sure if we want to include all that in > back-branches. On one hand, I've fixed a lot of bugs with the changes, so it > would be nice to include those fixes, but OTOH, perhaps we shouldn't risk > destabilizing back-branches. What's at the current tip. I'm happy with those changes in the back branches - they're really mostly just bug fixes and relatively minor architectural tweaks as I understood them. It's the move to a single library that I don't want in the back branches. > Then again, we can probably be more aggressive > with pushing changes to pldebugger to back-branches, as it's not something > you should be running in production anyway. It's just a development tool. Agreed. Thanks. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: