> > > > Can you submit an appropriate patch that can be included in the
> > > > mega-patch to be created on Sunday?
> > > are hard to de-couple. Now, I did not know we supported NetBSD on
> > > VAX. Does it work, anyone? Can I remove it?
> > NetBSD on VAX in on our supported list, and was verified for v6.3 by Tom
> > Helbekkmo.
> > > This is going to be pretty tough to test on every platform we support,
> > > so if it is done now, it will have to be done carefully.
> > Is this behavior in v6.2.x? In any case, if it is anything but minimally
> > trivial, it should be given a test on every supported platform, since it
> > hits the heart of the platform-specific code, doesn't it? Seems like it
> > should be put into the CVS tree and shaken out until the next release...
> Yea, that is what I was hinting at.
> Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
> maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
I tend to agree but am willing to compromise.
Can we do only the easy platforms at this time and then fix the others later?
Since S_LOCK is a macro, it could be
#define S_LOCK s_lock_with_backoff
on the easy platforms and
#define S_LOCK original_definition
on the tricky or hard to test platforms
If this will work, I am willing to hack this together tomorrow.
What is the time frame for accepting a patch like this?
David Gould dg(at)illustra(dot)com 510.628.3783 or 510.305.9468
Informix Software (No, really) 300 Lakeside Drive Oakland, CA 94612
- I realize now that irony has no place in business communications.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Thomas G. Lockhart||Date: 1998-03-17 04:08:21|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [QUESTIONS] UPDATE statement ORACLE 6 compatible|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 1998-03-17 03:54:53|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PATCHES] patches for 6.2.1p6|