| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Asif Naeem <anaeem(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |
| Date: | 2015-03-18 22:04:45 |
| Message-ID: | 20150318220445.GB3636@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I haven't followed this effort at all. Are we on the same page about
backpatching, i.e. we want a minimal patch to apply to the back branches
(which would be 9.0 to 9.4 at this point, I think, right?); and a larger
patch that would apply to 9.5.
Now that I think about this, perhaps it'd be better to apply the same
patch to all branches, and once that's settled (i.e. buildfarmed until
we're sure it works) we refactor things in HEAD.
Speaking of buildfarming the patch -- how are we to actually test this?
As far as I understand, this code only matters when the server is being
run by an administrator account, which the buildfarm code doesn't do ...
So we're going to have to trust testers running stuff manually, right?
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-03-19 00:22:31 | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |
| Previous Message | Asif Naeem | 2015-03-18 21:42:20 | Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server |