Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Egon Kocjan wrote:
> Thanks for the additional tests, that's still a win so this patch is a
> good thing. Relying on isatty is definitely something that we should
> treat as a bug here and backpatch. On master and REL9_5_STABLE, what I
> sent previously, with the call of pgwin32_is_service fixed in pg_ctl.c
> is fine. For back branches, we could simply copy pgwin32_is_service in
> pg_ctl.c and rely on that. It seems like the safer approach. Thoughts
> from other hackers on the matter?
I looked at applying this patch, but as it turns out we don't have the
backpatchable version. I don't think it's a good idea to backpatch the
move of the file from backend to src/port -- there's precedent for
copying the entire function (and assorted infrastructure) to pg_ctl
instead. Would you submit a patch to do that?
Here's a rebased version of what you submitted last. I tweaked a few
lines here and there, nothing major. I thought your patch is ready to
apply and we only need the backpatchable versions.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services