On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> Yeah, exactly. Unfortunately I see no way to add a useful test, at least >>> not one that will work in installcheck mode. There's no way to predict >>> what will be in the view in that case. Even for "make check", the output >>> would be pretty darn environment-dependent. > >> And also because this patch had no review input regarding Windows and >> EXEC_BACKEND. I would suggest pinging the author (just did so), >> waiting for a fix a bit, and move on with 4. if nothing happens. > > Well, mumble. After playing with this for a bit, I'm fairly convinced > that it offers useful functionality, especially with the error-reporting > additions I've proposed. Right now, there is no easy way to tell whether > a SIGHUP has worked, or why not if not, unless you have access to the > postmaster log. So I think there's definite usefulness here for > remote-administration scenarios. > > So I kinda think that alternative 1 (document the Windows deficiency) > is better than having no such functionality at all. Obviously a proper > fix would be better yet, but that's something that could be rolled in > later. > >> We usually require that a patch includes support for Windows as a >> requirement (see for example discussions about why pg_fincore in not a >> contrib module even if it overlaps a bit with pg_prewarm), why would >> this patch have a different treatment? > > Agreed, but it was evidently not obvious to anyone that there was a > portability issue in this code, else we'd have resolved the issue > before it got committed. As a thought experiment, what would happen > if we'd not noticed this issue till post-release, which is certainly > not implausible? > > Also, there are multiple pre-existing minor bugs (the leakage problem > I mentioned earlier, and some other things I've found while hacking > on the view patch) that we would have to deal with in some other > way if we revert now. I'd just as soon not detangle that. >
Thank you for bug report. I have not came up with portable idea yet, but I will deal with this problem immediately. If I couldn't come up with better solution, I'd like to propose #1 idea. But it would be unavoidable to be revert it if there are any reason for Windows support. Regards, -- Sawada Masahiko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
