On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> On 08/23/2012 02:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 08/23/2012 01:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> On 08/23/2012 12:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Anybody who wants to fix it is surely welcome to, but I'm not going
>>>>> to consider this item as a reason to postpone RC1.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you want done. I can test Amit's patch in a couple of
>>>> Windows environments (say XP+mingw and W7+MSVC) if that's what you need.
>>>
>>> Well, the patch as-is just adds another copy of code that really needs
>>> to be refactored into some new file in src/port/ or some such. That's
>>> not work I care to do while being unable to test the result ...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I'll see if I can carve out a bit of time.
>>
>>
>
> I have spent a couple of hours on this, and I'm sufficiently nervous about
> it that I'm not going to do anything in a hurry. I will see what can be done
> over the weekend, possibly, but no promises.
>
> TBH I'd rather stick with the less invasive approach of the original patch
> at this stage, and see about refactoring for 9.3.
+1.
While I haven't looked at the code specifically, these areas can be
quite fragile and very environment-dependent. I'd rather not upset it
this close to release - especially not after RC wrap.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/