On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
>> Very good point. I have modified the patch to add this block in all
>> cases where it was missing. I started to wonder about the comment and
>> if the Mingw fix was released. Based on some research, I see this as
>> fixed in mingw-runtime-3.2, released 2003-10-10. That's pretty old.
> Yeah. I would vote for removing that code in all branches. There is no
> reason to suppose somebody is going to install 8.4.22 on a machine that
> they haven't updated mingw on since 2003. Or, if you prefer, just remove
> it in HEAD --- but going around and *adding* more copies seems like
> make-work. The fact that we've not heard complaints about the omissions
> is good evidence that nobody's using the buggy mingw versions anymore.
I don't think it is. Right now we're not checking errno *at all* in a
bunch of these places, so we're sure not going to get complaints about
doing it incorrectly in those places. Or do I need more caffeine?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: