On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:03:16PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:42:24AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> This thread seems to have stalled. I thought we were going to consider
> >> these patches for 9.6.
> > Committers have given this thread's patches a generous level of
> > consideration.
> > At this point, if $you wouldn't back-patch them to at least 9.5, they don't
> > belong in 9.6. However, a back-patch to 9.3 does seem fair, assuming the
> > final patch looks anything like the current proposals.
> Er, the change is rather located and fully controlled by _MSC_VER >=
> 1900, so this represents no risk for existing compilations on Windows,
> don't you agree?
Yes. That is why I said a back-patch to 9.3 seems fair.
> >> Should we simply push them to see what the
> >> buildfarm thinks?
> > No. The thread has been getting suitable test reports for a few weeks now.
> > If it were not, better to make the enhancement wait as long as necessary
> > than
> > to use the buildfarm that way. Buildfarm results wouldn't even be
> > pertinent;
> > they would merely tell us whether the patch broke non-VS 2015 compilers.
> Well, they could push them, the results won't really matter and
> existing machines won't be impacted, as no buildfarm machine is using
> _MSC_VER >= 1900 as of now. Petr has one ready though as mentioned
Here you've presented two additional good reasons to not "simply push them to
see what the buildfarm thinks."
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: