Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server
От | Asif Naeem |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEB4t-N+U7Nm8xLD0Ak7Ozvi-ZuMPGhtGk1wRNA6SriK-eN-Bg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
Thank you. I have added it to next commitfest <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/4/114/>. On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:06 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 03:31:42PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> > Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> > > >> > > This sounds like the exact right patch. However, since it has a lot > >> > > of > >> > > Windows-specific code, and we don't have any Windows experts, I am > not > >> > > sure how this can be applied. > >> > > >> > Are you saying we will remove the Windows port? That sounds awesome, > >> > thanks! If you need help, I will volunteer on the spot, just LMK. > >> > >> :-) > >> > >> Well, I _am_ saying that historically patches that touch the innards of > >> the Windows API are rarely applied as we can't evaluate or maintain the > >> code. I can probably come up with an example if you want. > > > > I think it is true to a great extent that Windows patches receive less > > attention, however in many cases the patch finally do get committed. > > I think the right thing for this patch is that Author should submit it to > > next CF, so that it could be tracked and reviewed, once it is reviewed > > by some one having Windows access, it should be taken care by > > Committer. > Adding it to the next CF would be a good first step. I got some access > to some 2k3 and 2k8 boxes, so I think that I could give it a shot. > -- > Michael >
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: