On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:03:16PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:42:24AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> This thread seems to have stalled. I thought we were going to consider > >> these patches for 9.6. > > > > Committers have given this thread's patches a generous level of > > consideration. > > At this point, if $you wouldn't back-patch them to at least 9.5, they don't > > belong in 9.6. However, a back-patch to 9.3 does seem fair, assuming the > > final patch looks anything like the current proposals. > > Er, the change is rather located and fully controlled by _MSC_VER >= > 1900, so this represents no risk for existing compilations on Windows, > don't you agree?
Yes. That is why I said a back-patch to 9.3 seems fair. > >> Should we simply push them to see what the > >> buildfarm thinks? > > > > No. The thread has been getting suitable test reports for a few weeks now. > > If it were not, better to make the enhancement wait as long as necessary > > than > > to use the buildfarm that way. Buildfarm results wouldn't even be > > pertinent; > > they would merely tell us whether the patch broke non-VS 2015 compilers. > > Well, they could push them, the results won't really matter and > existing machines won't be impacted, as no buildfarm machine is using > _MSC_VER >= 1900 as of now. Petr has one ready though as mentioned > upthread. Here you've presented two additional good reasons to not "simply push them to see what the buildfarm thinks." -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
