Re: Should we automatically run duplicate_oids?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we automatically run duplicate_oids?
Date: 2013-07-09 02:59:07
Message-ID: 1373338747.11241.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 19:38 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > This would require a rather higher standard of portability than
> > duplicate_oids has heretofore been held to.
>
> Ah, yes. I suppose that making this happen would necessitate rewriting
> the script in highly portable Perl. Unfortunately, I'm not a likely
> candidate for that task.

I don't think rewriting it in Perl is necessary or even desirable. I
don't see anything particularly unportable in that script as it is.
(Hmm, perhaps egrep should be replaced by grep.)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2013-07-09 03:03:19 Re: Should we automatically run duplicate_oids?
Previous Message Robert Haas 2013-07-09 02:44:12 Re: Millisecond-precision connect_timeout for libpq