On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 05:10, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Maybe for the time being we need to think about keeping scan.c in CVS.
>>> It's not like scan.l gets updated all that often.
>> We could if we had to, though it amounts to saying that Windows-based
>> developers don't get to touch the scanner.
> True, but I'm not going to invest a large number of cycles on porting this.
> I'm not very happy about it either. I guess anyone wanting to develop on
> Windows and affect the scanner could install Cygwin or MSys.
I think requiring that for messing with the scanner is acceptable. As
it is now, requiring that to do *any* development or compiling on
HEAD, is a serious regression.
FWIW, it seems the version that Andrew put up doesn't work in one of
my test environments, and also not in at last one of Dave's. I will
test it in my second test environment later today to be sure.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2009-07-22 11:46:54|
|Subject: Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5|
|Previous:||From: Dean Rasheed||Date: 2009-07-22 11:29:13|
|Subject: Re: WIP: Deferrable unique constraints|