Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >Yes, I was concerned too that everything was in there.  I checked the
> > logs and found that the only thing not added was the checking
> >of the max number of connections before checking the max number of
> >buffers, which I added.  The other stuff was in there.  I also checked
> >pg_id's recent changes and those were in there too.
> >
> >Andrew, I assume this was a new implementation of initdb, and not taken
> >from an older initdb C implementation made by a company.
> >
> >This isn't really a patch but a C replacement of a critical shell
> >script so there is reason to double-check things.
> >  
> >
> Yes, I worked from, not from any other source. It's "all my 
> own work" :-) I think I started with 1.201 and later upgraded to 1.203.
> I agree it needs careful checking - the more eyeballs the better.

The great part is that it look so much like our code, unlike the
commerical port code I have seen for initdb in the past.  This certainly
moves us forward on Win32.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to