Re: _USE_32BIT_TIME_T Patch

From: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Owais Khan <owais(dot)khan(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hamid Quddus <hamid(dot)quddus(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: _USE_32BIT_TIME_T Patch
Date: 2012-09-03 07:57:33
Message-ID: CA+OCxozKm0dGob6fakPFsP-3i82Ry_9c3oiYedUkO9U+UYTLHQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>
> On 08/31/2012 06:39 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what we need to do to progress on this, especially re the
>>> back branches.
>>
>> The calendar might help us here. 9.2 is due to wrap next week, but it
>> will likely be a couple of months before we contemplate new back-branch
>> releases. So we could push a fix that we don't have 100% confidence in,
>> knowing that there is time to recover before it will ship in any of the
>> proven branches. Releasing it in 9.2.0 will afford an opportunity for
>> more testing than we can do by ourselves.
>>
>> That's not to take anything away from the fact that we ought to test as
>> many cases as we can now. But we do have some margin for error.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> OK, so I have tested it on my 32bit setup and it's working, so I'm going to
> commit this for HEAD/9.2 now, so we can get that wider testing.

Thanks Andrew. Owais, can you please test on both PG and PPAS?

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sergey Konoplev 2012-09-03 09:07:32 Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Slave Failover with PITR
Previous Message Daniel Farina 2012-09-03 07:10:58 Is this non-volatile pointer access OK?