Re: [BUGS] BUG #7795: Cannot choose UTF-8 encoding for initdb
paul.wat...@zephyr-consulting.com wrote: > [...] --pgdata="C:\Program Files\PostgreSQL\9.2\data2" > The files belonging to this database system will be owned by user > "pwatson". > This user must also own the server process. > fixing permissions on existing directory C:/Program > Files/PostgreSQL/9.2/data2 ... initdb: could not change permissions of > directory "C:/Program Files > /PostgreSQL/9.2/data2": Permission denied This looks like a simple permissions problem, not a bug. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
Re: [BUGS] wrong search_path being used
Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> There have been discussions about changing that > if I understand it correctly, you do consider it a bug but you > don't want to backport a fix because it might break existent > behavior in some dbs, right? No, there has been discussion about whether different behavior would be better in future major releases, but no consensus has been reached. >> but we wouldn't treat it as a back-patchable bug fix, because >> it would almost certainly break things for somebody. > > But it is not clear to me if you're willing to fix it for 9.2.3 > for instance? Back-patching means changing things in a minor release, where things only change after the second dot. We don't make changes in user-visible behavior like this in minor releases; so no, we would not make a change like this in 9.2.3 or any other 9.2 version. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
Re: [BUGS] wrong search_path being used
Em 09-01-2013 20:09, Kevin Grittner escreveu: Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote: Tom Lane wrote: There have been discussions about changing that if I understand it correctly, you do consider it a bug but you don't want to backport a fix because it might break existent behavior in some dbs, right? No, there has been discussion about whether different behavior would be better in future major releases, but no consensus has been reached. but we wouldn't treat it as a back-patchable bug fix, because it would almost certainly break things for somebody. But it is not clear to me if you're willing to fix it for 9.2.3 for instance? Back-patching means changing things in a minor release, where things only change after the second dot. We don't make changes in user-visible behavior like this in minor releases; so no, we would not make a change like this in 9.2.3 or any other 9.2 version. Ok, thanks for the explanation, Kevin. I'm curious though. Why wouldn't this behavior be considered a bug? Is there any link to previous discussions about this subject that I could read? -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
