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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: daveg||Date: 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 Baker||Date: 2008-06-24 22:15:54|
|Subject: Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables|