Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?
Date
Msg-id 12773.918427868@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Responses Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?  (Sascha Schumann <sas@schell.de>)
Re: [HACKERS] v6.4.3 ?  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
List pgsql-hackers
jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>     Don't remember what's all fixed between v6.4.2 and now.
>     Does anyone else know about bugs that are still in the REL6_4
>     branch and could be fixed without adding features?

I just checked in the ". conftest.sh" -> ". ./conftest.sh" fix to
configure, which several people have complained of (6.4.2 fails
if "." is not in your PATH at configure time).

We have to be pretty careful with these back-rev patches, since they
typically aren't going to get much testing in the back version's
CVS tree.  So I'm leery of applying anything that hasn't been tested
for a while in the development branch.

For example, the patch I just applied to CURRENT to link libpgtcl.so
with -lcrypt perhaps ought to go into REL6_4 --- but I'm afraid to do
that until we verify that it works on a variety of platforms.  It fixes
things on teo's Linux box but I worry that it might actually break things
elsewhere.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules
Next
From: gjerde@icebox.org
Date:
Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Problems with >2GB tables on Linux 2.0