On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 10:00:51AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2007 at 08:15:35AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > > > In hindsight, all these ecpg changes should have been made between beta1 > > > and beta2 when we have time to deal with the fallout, not right before > > > beta1. > > This one I totally agree with. > > > Or considered new features and held back for 8.4. Not picking on Michael, > > but the resemblance to the /contrib discussion is striking. Ecpg is another > > part of core PostgreSQL that lives by slightly different rules. > > But this one I don't. At least not the "new features" part. Had I > considered the patch a new feature I wouldn't have committed it. To me > it looked like a bug fix and I still see it as such. Yes, we could have > documented the bug instead, but still I don't see how we could argue > that getting multithreading to work on Windows is a feature when it's > already working on all other platforms a and is also compilable, but not > working in some/most cases, on Windows.
We'retalking abuot different patches I think ;-) Things like: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-09/msg00465.php http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2007-09/msg00408.php aren't win32 fixes. They're making parts of ecpg thread-safe that weren't before. And they're the ones that *caused* the win32 specific patches to be needed. That said, I'm sure one could argue they were bug-fixes, but I'm fairliy certain they would *not* be accepted as "bug fixes" if it were backend code. //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
