Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows
Date: 2012-09-05 00:46:53
Message-ID: 5046A0FD.5040501@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 09/04/2012 03:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/04/2012 03:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I realized this morning that I might have been a bit cavalier in
>> using dos2unix to smooth away differences in the dumpfiles produced
>> by pg_upgrade. Attached is a dump of the diff if this isn't done,
>> with Carriage Returns printed as '*' to make them visible. As can be
>> seen, in function bodies dump2 has the Carriage Returns doubled. I
>> have not had time to delve into how this comes about, and I need to
>> attend to some income-producing activity for a bit, but I'd like to
>> get it cleaned up ASAP. We are under the hammer for 9.2, so any help
>> other people can give on this would be appreciated.
>>
>
>
> Actually, I have the answer - it's quite simple. We just need to open
> the output files in binary mode when we split the dumpall file. The
> attached patch fixes it. I think we should backpatch the first part to
> 9.0.
>

OK, nobody else has reacted. I've spoken to Bruce and he seems happy
with it, although, TBH, whe I talked to him I thought I understood it
and now I'm not so sure. So we have 3 possibilities: leave it as is with
an error-hiding hack in the test script, apply this patch which removes
the hack and applies a fix that apparently works but which confuses us a
bit, or go back to generating errors. The last choice would mean I would
need to turn off pg_ugrade testing on Windows pending a fix. And we have
to decide pretty much now so we can get 9.2 out the door.

Thoughts?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2012-09-05 00:51:03 Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-09-05 00:37:52 Re: build farm machine using <make -j 8> mixed results