On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > On 08/23/2012 02:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> >> On 08/23/2012 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> >>> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >>>> >>>> On 08/23/2012 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Anybody who wants to fix it is surely welcome to, but I'm not going >>>>> to consider this item as a reason to postpone RC1. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure what you want done. I can test Amit's patch in a couple of >>>> Windows environments (say XP+mingw and W7+MSVC) if that's what you need. >>> >>> Well, the patch as-is just adds another copy of code that really needs >>> to be refactored into some new file in src/port/ or some such. That's >>> not work I care to do while being unable to test the result ... >>> >>> >> >> >> OK, I'll see if I can carve out a bit of time. >> >> > > I have spent a couple of hours on this, and I'm sufficiently nervous about > it that I'm not going to do anything in a hurry. I will see what can be done > over the weekend, possibly, but no promises. > > TBH I'd rather stick with the less invasive approach of the original patch > at this stage, and see about refactoring for 9.3.
+1. While I haven't looked at the code specifically, these areas can be quite fragile and very environment-dependent. I'd rather not upset it this close to release - especially not after RC wrap. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
