Re: pg_upgrade failure on Windows Server

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:09 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Asif Naeem <anaeem(dot)it(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> For the backpatching, the patches sent previously here (=>
> >>
> >>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEB4t-OHNE95=n5U4ySsYkWipQsWeQuTBSJkaYJ63_1VzkzkhA@mail.gmail.com
> )
> >> are fine IMO. They simply consist of a copy of what is done in
> >> initdb.c. Now, perhaps we had better apply the patch duplicating the
> >> logic to all branches, including HEAD, first, see what the buildfarm
> >> says, and then finish wrapping up the refactoring patch.
> >
> > PFA patch for older branches, v1 patch was not applying cleaning other
> than
> > 94. Thanks.
>
> Cool, thanks for all the patches!
> Nothing to say about the patch on master, except this thing not fixed:
> #include "common/username.h"
> +#include "common/restricted_token.h"
> restricted_token.h should be declared before username.h.
>

Oops, I did not realized that it require to be changed on multiple places,
PFA updated v6 patch for master branch.

> In the back-branch patches, the format of the stderr messages is not
> correct, and the suffix using progname is missing in pg_upgrade. For
> example, this thing:
> + fprintf(stderr, _("could not open process token: error
> code %lu\n"), GetLastError());
> Should be rewritten like that for consistency with master and the
> other utilities:
> fprintf(stderr, _("%s: could not open process token: error code
> %lu\n"), progname, GetLastError());
> Perhaps now Bruce has a different opinion on the matter for pg_upgrade...
>

Okey sure, PFA updated patches for older branches, now it accepts progname
as a argument as master branch patch do.

> The 9.0 patch is missing as well, but I guess that the committer who
> will pick up this series could get something up using the 9.1 patch...
>

Ah. Okey. I was not sure till which back branch it need to fixed. PFA patch
for 90 branch.

> I have also done some sanity checks down to 9.2 (got some issues when
> building with ~9.1), and noticed no problems.
>

Thank you so much. I hope now there is nothing left from my side :).

> Regards,
> --
> Michael
>