Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use
Date: 2017-12-29 23:29:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:33:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> I have looked at 0002 and 0003. Those look good to ship for me.
> > Yeah, I'd vote to push those right away to see what buildfarm has to
> > say. That way you can push 0001 shortly after the dust settles (if
> > any), which will have an effect on the bootstrap data format patch.
> Yeah, I think all of this is at the point where the next thing to do
> is see what the buildfarm has to say. I could test it manually on
> prairiedog, but I'd just as soon let the buildfarm script do the work.
> It does make sense, probably, to push 0001-0003 first and see if
> anything turns up from that, then 0004.

I have not looked at 0001 in details yet, which was going to be my next
step. If you could wait for at least two days that would be nice to give
me some room.

0002 and 0003 are independent on the rest, which is why I looked at them
first. Would we want to actually backpatch them at some point? Perhaps
not per the lack of complains in this area.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuo Ishii 2017-12-29 23:40:57 Re: Fix a Oracle-compatible instr function in the documentation
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-12-29 23:16:18 Re: Converting plpgsql to use DTYPE_REC for named composite types