> OK, I am confused. We have HAVE_SNPRINTF, but I don't see it being used
> anywhere. Is it still relivant to our code? Does NT not have snprintf?
Probably ecpg needs to import the ports/snprintf module if it exists.
See psql, which does this already.
>> 2) gcc warns about redefine of CURRENT_TIME. Nothing
>> serious (I mean the compile does not fail..), I just thought I mention.
>> defined in backend/parse.h & <sys/ipc.h> (cygwin32_ipc-1.03)
> Seems this is getting in our way. We could try undefining it before
> defining it, I guess. I don't think it affects the compile.
I wonder whether it is possible to avoid including <sys/ipc.h> in the
files that need to include parse.h. Which files show the warning,
>> Is this really the Right Thing(tm) to have bug-reporting list
>> available only to subscribers? I mean it should be encouraged to
>> be on list but enforced? There should be decent anti-spam software
>> floating around?
> The bugs list is open to anyone, right? It should be.
I think it's set to filter out nonsubscribers just like all the other
pgsql lists. Considering the amount of spam we were getting before
we put in those filters, I'm not eager to just remove the filter.
Better ideas are welcome...
One idea: does anyone know whether bug submissions via the webpage form
go through if sent by a nonsubscriber? If not, maybe we could arrange
an exception in the filter for that case.
BTW, you can (should) subscribe to "pgsql-loophole", and then you'll be
allowed to post to any of the pgsql lists. However, that's no help for
someone who's not already involved in the community, but is just coming
along and trying to report a bug.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2000-02-28 23:26:54|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] 7.0beta1: bugs appearing on cygwin|
|Previous:||From: Michael Andreasen||Date: 2000-02-28 22:43:04|
|Subject: No subject was specified.|