Обсуждение: pgsql: Stop perl from hijacking stdio and other stuff on Windows.

Log Message:
-----------

Stop perl from hijacking stdio and other stuff on Windows.

Tags:
----
REL8_0_STABLE

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql/src/pl/plperl:
        SPI.xs (r1.11 -> r1.11.4.1)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plperl/SPI.xs.diff?r1=1.11&r2=1.11.4.1)
        plperl.c (r1.67.4.3 -> r1.67.4.4)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plperl/plperl.c.diff?r1=1.67.4.3&r2=1.67.4.4)
        spi_internal.c (r1.5 -> r1.5.4.1)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/pl/plperl/spi_internal.c.diff?r1=1.5&r2=1.5.4.1)

adunstan@postgresql.org (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
> Stop perl from hijacking stdio and other stuff on Windows.

You seem to have forgotten HEAD.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

>adunstan@postgresql.org (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
>
>
>>Stop perl from hijacking stdio and other stuff on Windows.
>>
>>
>
>You seem to have forgotten HEAD.
>
>
>
>

On HEAD I intend to rearrange the headers more rationally - see earlier
email to -hackers. We shouldn't do that on the stable branches, though,
on the principle of least disturbance, so I just applied the change in
situ there.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> You seem to have forgotten HEAD.

> On HEAD I intend to rearrange the headers more rationally - see earlier
> email to -hackers.

Fine, but the corresponding changes should go into all the branches
concurrently, so that people aren't confused about whether the omission
is intentional or not.  It's hard enough keeping track of multiple
branches without creating irrelevant random differences in their commit
histories.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

>Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You seem to have forgotten HEAD.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>On HEAD I intend to rearrange the headers more rationally - see earlier
>>email to -hackers.
>>
>>
>
>Fine, but the corresponding changes should go into all the branches
>concurrently, so that people aren't confused about whether the omission
>is intentional or not.  It's hard enough keeping track of multiple
>branches without creating irrelevant random differences in their commit
>histories.
>
>
>
>

My apologies. I am just checking this change, and will commit it when
the checks pass.

cheers

andrew