| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | marco atzeri <marco(dot)atzeri(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd |
| Date: | 2014-01-24 03:48:01 |
| Message-ID: | 29159.1390535281@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Andrew, should this configuration/code patch be applied to 9.4?
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/51B59794.3000500@gmail.com
> I think we would have to make Cygwin-specific regression output to
> handle the regression failures, but frankly I am not even sure if they
> are right.
Those regression failures certainly say there is something broken in
the submitter's build, so this needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm not qualified to evaluate the proposed changes, but I wonder why
they're needed given that we have successful cygwin builds in the
buildfarm.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-01-24 03:50:57 | Re: Postgresql for cygwin - 3rd |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-01-24 03:42:27 | Re: Why do we let autovacuum give up? |