From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: stat() vs cygwin |
Date: | 2008-06-24 22:24:46 |
Message-ID: | 4861742E.4060102@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> More to the point: I thought this had been tested. I will test it today
>> so we can put this whole thread to rest.
>>
>
> IIRC it was only tested insofar that it doesn't actually break. Not if
> it returns proper results.
>
I have tested it using the suggested script (corrected) and it passes
(both sizes the same) consistently, as I expected.
> Buf if my memory isn't completely off, there are other such cases as
> well around the code, where we've done proper fixes for native win32 and
> left cygwin alone. The argument being that for a developer system, it
> doesn't really matter if things aren't entirely reliable, and that
> nobody should be using cygwin for a production server. (I have nothing
> against using it for a dev box, though I wouldn't do it myself)
>
>
>
I don't recall any. But I could be wrong.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | daveg | 2008-06-25 00:01:03 | Re: [HACKERS] Patch for Prevent pg_dump/pg_restore from being affected by statement_timeout |
Previous Message | Jeffrey Baker | 2008-06-24 22:15:54 | Re: proposal for smaller indexes on index-ordered tables |