Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
Date
Msg-id 16896.1533935042@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Allowing printf("%m") only where it actually works
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> I think 0002 is probably pushable, really.  The unresolved issue about
> 0001 is whether it will create a spate of warnings on Windows builds,
> and if so what to do about it.  We might learn something from the
> cfbot about that, but I think the full buildfarm is going to be the
> only really authoritative answer.

Ah, cfbot has a run already, and it reports no warnings or errors in
its Windows build.

At this point I'm inclined to push both of those patches so we can
see what the buildfarm makes of them.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: logical decoding / rewrite map vs. maxAllocatedDescs
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Improve behavior of concurrent TRUNCATE