On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:17:30AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm wondering why the back-branch patches added a dependency on
> DTK_ISODOW in the first place. That looks more like a copy&paste
> error than something intentional. Michael?
It is, somehow it slipped through. Just removed it.
Michael
Guillaume Lelarge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With latest modification on src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt_common.c,
> DTK_ISODOW is not defined. The patch attached needs to be applied on 8.1
> and 8.2 branches to compile successfully.
I'm wondering why the back-branch patches added a depende
Hi all,
With latest modification on src/interfaces/ecpg/pgtypeslib/dt_common.c,
DTK_ISODOW is not defined. The patch attached needs to be applied on 8.1
and 8.2 branches to compile successfully.
Regards.
--
Guillaume.
? src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/libecpg_compat.so.2.2
? src/interfaces/e
