Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?
Date: 2005-06-26 17:14:11
Message-ID: 42BEE263.60403@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

> However, we cannot
>backpatch the change without forcing initdb (or at least reindex of
>tsearch2 indexes), even on architectures that are not currently broken.
>So I'm afraid penguin is out of luck --- the 8.0 branch has to stay
>the way it is.
>
>
>
>

With that exception, we now have only one machine marked active that has
consistently failed on HEAD or REL8_0_STABLE: osprey (NetBSD 2.0 gcc
3.3.3 m68k)

I have asked its owner to look into what the problems might be.

I am about to start publishing owner email addresses (in a hard to
harvest way) so that hackers can contact them directly about problems
seen on their machines. This was raised about a week ago and nobody has
raised an objection.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oleg Bartunov 2005-06-26 17:34:16 Re: tsearch2 changes need backpatching?
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2005-06-26 15:57:57 Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity