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?

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to