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:

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

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


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to