On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 19:33, Magnus Hagander<magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:58, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 16:10, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>> 8.2 as well, no?
>>> 8.2 has a different shmem implementation - the one that emulates sysv
>>> shmem. The patch will need to be changed around for that, and I
>>> haven't looked at that. It may be worthwhile to do that, but it's a
>>> separate patch, so let's get it out in 8.3 and 8.4 first.
>> If it's at all hard to do, I could see deprecating 8.2 for Windows
> I haven't looked at how much work it would be at all yet. So let's do
> that before we decide to deprecate anything. As mentioned downthread,
> 8.2 is a very widespread release, and we really want to avoid
> deprecating it.
Here's an attempt at a backport to 8.2. I haven't examined it in
detail, but it passes "make check" on mingw.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2009-08-11 14:54:22|
|Subject: Re: Hot standby and synchronous replication status|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-08-11 14:02:01|
|Subject: Re: Shipping documentation untarred |