Re: patch for parallel pg_dump

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: patch for parallel pg_dump
Date: 2012-03-29 00:46:00
Message-ID: 4F73B0C8.5030507@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 03/28/2012 08:28 PM, Joachim Wieland wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> First hurdle: It doesn't build under Windows/mingw-w64:
>>
>> parallel.c:40:12: error: static declaration of 'pgpipe' follows
>> non-static declaration
> Strange, I'm not seeing this but I'm building with VC2005. What
> happens is that you're pulling in the pgpipe.h header. I have moved
> these functions as static functions into pg_dump since you voted for
> removing them from the other location (because as it turned out,
> nobody else is currently using them).

But your patch hasn't got rid of them, and so it's declared twice. There
is no pgpipe.h, BTW, it's declared in port.h. If VC2005 doesn't complain
about the double declaration then that's a bug in the compiler, IMNSHO.
Doesn't it even issue a warning? I no longer use VC2005 for anything,
BTW, I use VC2008 or later.

Anyway, ISTM the best thing is just for us to get rid of pgpipe without
further ado. I'll try to get a patch together for that.

cheers

andrew

> Joachim
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-03-29 01:09:41 Re: Re: pg_stat_statements normalisation without invasive changes to the parser (was: Next steps on pg_stat_statements normalisation)
Previous Message Noah Misch 2012-03-29 00:43:23 Re: ECPG FETCH readahead