On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Asif Naeem <anaeem.it@gmail.com> wrote: >> For the backpatching, the patches sent previously here (=> >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEB4t-OHNE95=n5U4ySsYkWipQsWeQuTBSJkaYJ63_1VzkzkhA@mail.gmail.com) >> are fine IMO. They simply consist of a copy of what is done in >> initdb.c. Now, perhaps we had better apply the patch duplicating the >> logic to all branches, including HEAD, first, see what the buildfarm >> says, and then finish wrapping up the refactoring patch. > > PFA patch for older branches, v1 patch was not applying cleaning other than > 94. Thanks.
Cool, thanks for all the patches! Nothing to say about the patch on master, except this thing not fixed: #include "common/username.h" +#include "common/restricted_token.h" restricted_token.h should be declared before username.h.
Oops, I did not realized that it require to be changed on multiple places, PFA updated v6 patch for master branch.
In the back-branch patches, the format of the stderr messages is not correct, and the suffix using progname is missing in pg_upgrade. For example, this thing: + fprintf(stderr, _("could not open process token: error code %lu\n"), GetLastError()); Should be rewritten like that for consistency with master and the other utilities: fprintf(stderr, _("%s: could not open process token: error code %lu\n"), progname, GetLastError()); Perhaps now Bruce has a different opinion on the matter for pg_upgrade...
Okey sure, PFA updated patches for older branches, now it accepts progname as a argument as master branch patch do.
The 9.0 patch is missing as well, but I guess that the committer who will pick up this series could get something up using the 9.1 patch...
Ah. Okey. I was not sure till which back branch it need to fixed. PFA patch for 90 branch.
I have also done some sanity checks down to 9.2 (got some issues when building with ~9.1), and noticed no problems.
Thank you so much. I hope now there is nothing left from my side :).
