Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows
Date
Msg-id 5046A0FD.5040501@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: pg_upgrade diffs on WIndows  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 09/04/2012 03:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 09/04/2012 03:09 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I realized this morning that I might have been a bit cavalier in 
>> using dos2unix to smooth away differences in the dumpfiles produced 
>> by pg_upgrade. Attached is a dump of the diff if this isn't done,  
>> with Carriage Returns printed as '*' to make them visible. As can be 
>> seen, in function bodies dump2 has the Carriage Returns doubled. I 
>> have not had time to delve into how this comes about, and I need to 
>> attend to some income-producing activity for a bit, but I'd like to 
>> get it cleaned up ASAP. We are under the hammer for 9.2, so any help 
>> other people can give on this would be appreciated.
>>
>
>
> Actually, I have the answer - it's quite simple. We just need to open 
> the output files in binary mode when we split the dumpall file. The 
> attached patch fixes it. I think we should backpatch the first part to 
> 9.0.
>


OK, nobody else has reacted. I've spoken to Bruce and he seems happy 
with it, although, TBH, whe I talked to him I thought I understood it 
and now I'm not so sure. So we have 3 possibilities: leave it as is with 
an error-hiding hack in the test script, apply this patch which removes 
the hack and applies a fix that apparently works but which confuses us a 
bit, or go back to generating errors. The last choice would mean I would 
need to turn off pg_ugrade testing on Windows pending a fix. And we have 
to decide pretty much now so we can get 9.2 out the door.

Thoughts?

cheers

andrew





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: build farm machine using mixed results
Next
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: build farm machine using mixed results