Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >Yes, I was concerned too that everything was in there. I checked the > >initdb.sh 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 initdb.sh, 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 | http://candle.pha.pa.us [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
