| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows? |
| Date: | 2020-07-09 21:39:40 |
| Message-ID: | 2007885.1594330780@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 7/9/20 3:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Should we consider back-patching the CRLF filtering changes, ie
>> 91bdf499b + ffb4cee43? It's not really necessary perhaps, but
>> I dislike situations where the "same" test on different branches is
>> testing different things. Seems like a recipe for future surprises.
> Yes please.
Done.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tim Cross | 2020-07-09 23:07:51 | Re: Efficiently advancing a sequence without risking it going backwards. |
| Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2020-07-09 21:07:59 | Re: Efficiently advancing a sequence without risking it going backwards. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-09 21:56:06 | Re: min_safe_lsn column in pg_replication_slots view |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2020-07-09 21:38:07 | Re: Postgres is not able to handle more than 4k tables!? |