Thread: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

[9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
"MauMau"
Date:
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

Re: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
Robert Haas
Date:
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



Re: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
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



Re: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
"MauMau"
Date:
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

Re: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
Bjorn Munch
Date:
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



Re: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
Robert Haas
Date:
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



Re: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
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



Re: [9.3 doc fix] clarification of Solaris versions

From
"MauMau"
Date:
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