Re: Cleaning up historical portability baggage

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 1:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 3:11 PM Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> The patch does not apply successfully; please rebase the patch.
>
> > There's a good reason for that -- the latest one was committed two
> > weeks ago. The status should still be waiting on author, though,
> > namely for:
>
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 5:28 AM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Remaining things from this thread:
> >> * removing --disable-thread-safety
> >> * removing those vestigial HAVE_XXX macros (one by one analysis and patches)
> >> * making Unix sockets secure for Windows in tests
>
> I imagine we should just close the current CF entry as committed.
> There's no patch in existence for any of those TODO items, and
> I didn't think one was imminent.

I have patches for these, but not quite ready to post. I'll mark this
entry closed, and make a new one or two when ready, instead of this
one-gigantic-CF-entry-that-goes-on-forever format.