| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Kellerer <shammat(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows? |
| Date: | 2020-07-09 20:11:08 |
| Message-ID: | 8e407ca1-d886-8314-9b70-3128eac94a1d@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 7/9/20 3:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Cool, I'll go try changing all those conditions to use the msys test.
> OK, that worked: all four relevant buildfarm members are now showing
> the expected test failure. So I'll go fix the original bug.
>
> Should we consider back-patching the CRLF filtering changes, ie
> 91bdf499b + ffb4cee43? It's not really necessary perhaps, but
> I dislike situations where the "same" test on different branches is
> testing different things. Seems like a recipe for future surprises.
Yes please.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2020-07-09 21:07:59 | Re: Efficiently advancing a sequence without risking it going backwards. |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-09 19:36:10 | Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mike Palmiotto | 2020-07-09 20:17:59 | Re: Auxiliary Processes and MyAuxProc |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-09 19:36:10 | Re: Is this a bug in pg_current_logfile() on Windows? |