| From: | Mikhail <mp39590(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Make ENOSPC not fatal in semaphore creation |
| Date: | 2021-10-22 19:55:08 |
| Message-ID: | YXMXHBWuI1t6NX55@edge.lab.local |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 03:43:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mikhail <mp39590(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > In your patch I've removed testing for 5.x versions, because official
> > releases are supported only for one year, no need to worry about them.
>
> Official support or no, we have OpenBSD 5.9 in our buildfarm, so
> ignoring the case isn't going to fly.
5.9 has support for unnamed POSIX semas. Do you think new machine with
OpenBSD <5.5 (when unnamed POSIX semas were introduced) can appear in
buildfarm or be used by real customer?
I have no objections on testing "openbsd5.[01234]" and using SysV semas
there and can redo and test the patch, but isn't it over caution?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-10-22 20:04:40 | Re: [PATCH] Make ENOSPC not fatal in semaphore creation |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-10-22 19:53:59 | Re: [PATCH] Make ENOSPC not fatal in semaphore creation |