| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Theoretically one could go into src/test/thread and build/run this
program there. In practice, that hasn't worked since 96bf88d52,
and probably much longer on some platforms (likely including just
the sort of hoary leftovers where this test might be of interest).
While it wouldn't be too hard to repair the breakage, the fact that
nobody has noticed for two years shows that there is zero usefulness
in maintaining this build pathway. Let's get rid of it and decree
that thread_test.c is *only* meant to be built/used in configure.
Given that decision, it makes sense to put thread_test.c under config/
and get rid of src/test/thread altogether, so that's what I did.
In passing, update src/test/README, which had been ignored by some
not-so-recent additions of subdirectories.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/227659.1603041612@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
According to Microsoft's documentation, 2.2 has been the current
version since Windows 98 or so. Moreover, that's what the Postgres
backend has been requesting since 2004 (cf commit 4cdf51e64).
So there seems no reason for libpq to keep asking for 1.1.
Bring thread_test along, too, so that we're uniformly asking for 2.2
in all our WSAStartup calls.
It's not clear whether there's any point in back-patching this,
so for now I didn't.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/132799.1602960277@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: update all files in master, backpatch legal files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This fixes various typos in docs and comments, and removes some orphaned
definitions.
Author: Alexander Lakhin
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/5da8e325-c665-da95-21e0-c8a99ea61fbf@gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.4
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This provides the features that used to exist in useful_strerror()
for users of strerror_r(), too. Also, standardize on the GNU convention
that strerror_r returns a char pointer that may not be NULL.
I notice that libpq's win32.c contains a variant version of strerror_r
that probably ought to be folded into strerror.c. But lacking a
Windows environment, I should leave that to somebody else.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2975.1526862605@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: certain files through 9.3
|
| |
|
|
| |
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoaA9=1RWKtBWpDaj+sF3Stgc8sHgf5z=KGtbjwPLQVDMA@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It's not necessary for such a small program, and it causes unnecessary
extra work to get the correct definition of bool, more so if we are
going to introduce stdbool.h later.
Reviewed-by: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments
to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments
following #endif to not obey the general rule.
Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using
the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that
tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of
code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be
moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's
code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops
in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working
in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the
net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed
one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves
more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such
cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after
the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after.
Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same
as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else.
That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage
from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.1
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch certain files through 9.0
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Update all files in head, and files COPYRIGHT and legal.sgml in all back
branches.
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
Fully update git head, and update back branches in ./COPYRIGHT and
legal.sgml files.
|
| |
|
|
| |
commit-fest.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
than /tmp. Also cleanup C defines and add comments.
Per report by Alex Soto
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
loop if it fails, which is what what happened on my HP-UX box. (I think
the reason it failed on that box is a misconfiguration on my behalf, but
that's no reason to hang.)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
Andrew Chernow
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Standard English uses "may", "can", and "might" in different ways:
may - permission, "You may borrow my rake."
can - ability, "I can lift that log."
might - possibility, "It might rain today."
Unfortunately, in conversational English, their use is often mixed, as
in, "You may use this variable to do X", when in fact, "can" is a better
choice. Similarly, "It may crash" is better stated, "It might crash".
|
| |
|
|
| |
back-stamped for this.
|
| | |
|
|
|
have the directory for the configure test.
|
