Thread: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions
Hello, One of my colleagues, who is relatively new to PostgreSQL, asked me if PostgreSQL supports Solaris 11. The reason why he had this question is that the following page says "Solaris 10" instead of "Solaris 10 and later". http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/kernel-resources.html So, I suggest this tiny modification to avoid misunderstanding. In addition, I suggest removing references to OpenSolaris because OpenSolaris is already discontinued. I'm attaching one patch file. Could you commit this change? Regards MauMau
Attachment
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, MauMau <maumau307@gmail.com> wrote: > One of my colleagues, who is relatively new to PostgreSQL, asked me if > PostgreSQL supports Solaris 11. The reason why he had this question is that > the following page says "Solaris 10" instead of "Solaris 10 and later". > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/kernel-resources.html > > So, I suggest this tiny modification to avoid misunderstanding. In > addition, I suggest removing references to OpenSolaris because OpenSolaris > is already discontinued. > > I'm attaching one patch file. Could you commit this change? Just because OpenSolaris is discontinued doesn't mean we don't support it. It looks like it has been unsupported for ~3 years at this point - not sure if that is long enough to remove the documentation reference. The patch looks otherwise sensible, but I note that we don't actually have any Buildfarm members running Solaris > 10. So do we know for sure that everything works there? Should we try to get one set up before claiming we support the platform? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas escribió: > Just because OpenSolaris is discontinued doesn't mean we don't support > it. It looks like it has been unsupported for ~3 years at this point > - not sure if that is long enough to remove the documentation > reference. That part of the operating system ecosystem is messy, but I don't think it can be said that it is dead. There is Illumos, which does look dead; but there's also OpenIndiana which doesn't. And there's also OmniOS, which is based on Illumos, maintained by OmniTI, and has a running member in our buildfarm. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> > Robert Haas escribió: > >> Just because OpenSolaris is discontinued doesn't mean we don't support >> it. It looks like it has been unsupported for ~3 years at this point >> - not sure if that is long enough to remove the documentation >> reference. > > That part of the operating system ecosystem is messy, but I don't think > it can be said that it is dead. There is Illumos, which does look dead; > but there's also OpenIndiana which doesn't. And there's also OmniOS, > which is based on Illumos, maintained by OmniTI, and has a running > member in our buildfarm. OK, I've left the reference to OpenSolaris in the attached patch to imply the OpenSolaris derivatives. > The patch looks otherwise sensible, but I note that we don't actually > have any Buildfarm members running Solaris > 10. So do we know for > sure that everything works there? Should we try to get one set up > before claiming we support the platform? Thanks. I belive PostgreSQL runs successfully on Solaris 10 and later, because the binaries are published on the community site: http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/binary/v9.3beta2/solaris/ And I could build PostgreSQL 9.2.4 from source code and completed regression test on Solaris 10. In addition, EnterpriseDB supports their product on Solaris, don't they? I appreciate it if you could commit this patch. Regards MauMau
Attachment
On 29/08 21.17, MauMau wrote: > > Thanks. I belive PostgreSQL runs successfully on Solaris 10 and later, > because the binaries are published on the community site: > > http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/binary/v9.3beta2/solaris/ Sorry, I didn't notice this thread earlier. Yes, I am building those binaries and I have had no problems building PostgreSQL and running the regression tests on Solaris 11. It would be quite unusual for something to work on Solaris 10 but not 11, but of course it could happen. There may have been a case or two which I now can't remember. - Bjorn Munch
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Bjorn Munch <bjorn.munch@oracle.com> wrote: > On 29/08 21.17, MauMau wrote: >> >> Thanks. I belive PostgreSQL runs successfully on Solaris 10 and later, >> because the binaries are published on the community site: >> >> http://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/binary/v9.3beta2/solaris/ > > Sorry, I didn't notice this thread earlier. Yes, I am building those > binaries and I have had no problems building PostgreSQL and running > the regression tests on Solaris 11. It would be quite unusual for > something to work on Solaris 10 but not 11, but of course it could > happen. There may have been a case or two which I now can't remember. OK, patch committed and back-patched to 9.3. The patch file turned out to be sorta garbled. I'm not sure if a broken version of diff was used to generate this or whether MauMau hand-edited it after the fact, but the number of lines that were indicated in the control lines didn't match the actual hunks, and patch threw up. So it took me 20 minutes to do what should have taken 5, but now it's done. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas escribió: > The patch file turned out to be sorta garbled. I'm not sure if a > broken version of diff was used to generate this or whether MauMau > hand-edited it after the fact, but the number of lines that were > indicated in the control lines didn't match the actual hunks, and > patch threw up. So it took me 20 minutes to do what should have taken > 5, but now it's done. If this ever happens to you in the future, I suggest giving recountdiff a look (in the patchutils package). It is supposed to fix offsets and line counts of hand-edited diffs. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> > OK, patch committed and back-patched to 9.3. > > The patch file turned out to be sorta garbled. I'm not sure if a > broken version of diff was used to generate this or whether MauMau > hand-edited it after the fact, but the number of lines that were > indicated in the control lines didn't match the actual hunks, and > patch threw up. So it took me 20 minutes to do what should have taken > 5, but now it's done. Thank you, and I'm sorry I caused you much trouble. I edited the patch by hand, being careless about the messy effect. I'll avoid hand-editing. Regards MauMau