Claudio Natoli wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> > Claudio, where are we on this patch? I see an even newer version in the
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-12/msg00361.php
> [Weird you and Google groups "missed" it!]
No, seems only _I_ missed it. The google display for groups:
Doesn't show individual messages but lists threads, _and_ it shows the
date of the last message in the thread, rather than the first. That's
how I missed it. How I missed it my mailbox, I have no idea. Sorry.
> > Anyway, Tom has looked at your newest patch and it looks good to him.
> I'm happy with the patch from the link above being committed if Tom has no
> more comments. Was only waiting for a final nod from him.
> Once it is in the source tree, give me a couple days and I'll fire off a
> patch with the actual CreateProcess calls... and then we are off into Win32
> signal land [shudder].
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-01-07 06:33:42|
|Subject: Re: Function argument names |
|Previous:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2004-01-06 23:09:09|
|Subject: Re: add "WITH OIDS" to CREATE TABLE AS|
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2004-01-08 19:14:30|
|Subject: Re: Signals on Win32 (yet again)|
|Previous:||From: Claudio Natoli||Date: 2004-01-06 22:04:46|
|Subject: Re: fork/exec patch: pre-CreateProcess finalization|