Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: stat() vs cygwin

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: stat() vs cygwin
Date: 2008-06-24 22:24:46
Message-ID: 4861742E.4060102@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> More to the point: I thought this had been tested. I will test it today
>> so we can put this whole thread to rest.
>>     
>
> IIRC it was only tested insofar that it doesn't actually break. Not if
> it returns proper results.
>   

I have tested it using the suggested script (corrected) and it passes 
(both sizes the same) consistently, as I expected.
> Buf if my memory isn't completely off, there are other such cases as
> well around the code, where we've done proper fixes for native win32 and
> left cygwin alone. The argument being that for a developer system, it
> doesn't really matter if things aren't entirely reliable, and that
> nobody should be using cygwin for a production server. (I have nothing
> against using it for a dev box, though I wouldn't do it myself)
>
>
>   

I don't recall any. But I could be wrong.

cheers

andrew

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: davegDate: 2008-06-25 00:01:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout
Previous:From: Jeffrey BakerDate: 2008-06-24 22:15:54
Subject: Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group