| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: fairywren is generating bogus BASE_BACKUP commands |
| Date: | 2022-01-23 20:07:23 |
| Message-ID: | 1753028.1642968443@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Maybe we need to have a README in the tree somewhere that tries to
> explain this. Or maybe we should make our build artifacts msys-aware,
> if that's possible, so that this just works. Or maybe supporting msys
> is not worth the trouble.
I've been wondering that last myself. Supporting Windows-native is
already a huge amount of work, which we put up with because there
are a lot of users. If msys is going to add another large chunk of
work, has it got enough users to justify that?
The recent argument that this behavior isn't user-visible doesn't do
anything to mollify me on that point; it appears to me to be tantamount
to a concession that no real users actually care about msys.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-01-23 20:42:13 | Re: XLogReadRecord() error in XlogReadTwoPhaseData() |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-01-23 19:59:50 | Re: Bogus duplicate command issued in pg_dump |