| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Proposed Windows-specific change: Enable crash dumps (like core files) |
| Date: | 2010-11-23 14:05:01 |
| Message-ID: | 4CEBCA0D.6030203@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11/23/2010 01:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not really sure why we're even considering the notion of
> back-patching this item. Doing so would not fit with any past practice
> or agreed-on project management practices, not even under our lax
> standards for contrib (and I keep hearing people claim that contrib
> is or should be as trustworthy as core, anyway). Since when do we
> back-patch significant features that have not been through a beta test
> cycle?
I see no advantage to back-patching. It's easy to provide a drop-in
binary DLL for older versions of Pg on Windows, who're the only people
this will work for.
If the EDB folks saw value in it, they could bundle the DLL with updated
point releases of the installer for Windows. No back-patching is necessary.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-11-23 14:09:35 | Re: Re: Proposed Windows-specific change: Enable crash dumps (like core files) |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2010-11-23 14:02:01 | Re: Re: Proposed Windows-specific change: Enable crash dumps (like core files) |