Re: BUG #16927: Postgres can`t access WAL files

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Ярослав Пашинский <yarik97(dot)6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BUG #16927: Postgres can`t access WAL files
Date: 2021-03-19 15:19:50
Message-ID: CABUevExwJrT9tAZz0gJKoSc3qLhg3NGsKJH7QWj4BtEK=JHChg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 4:14 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > There was a typo in one of my previous messages. What I was referring
> > to is aaa3aedd.
>
> Ah, I was just about to ask what the heck aaaef7a referred to.
>
> Given the evidence that there's a problem, I agree with reverting
> that. I'd suggest keeping the cosmetic rename of the function,
> but we have to put back the Windows-doesn't-HAVE_WORKING_LINK logic.

+1. I think the indications are definitely clear enough that this has
to go back in.

> Grepping in the v12 branch, I find a second use of HAVE_WORKING_LINK
> in contrib/pg_standby. But that seems to be in a non-WIN32 code path,
> so I don't think putting that back is necessary.

.. and apart front aht I *really* doubt that one has many users,
especially on Windows :)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-03-19 19:37:04 Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-03-19 15:13:52 Re: BUG #16927: Postgres can`t access WAL files