Re: Patch missing from back branches

2018-05-02 Thread Haroon
On 1 May 2018 at 21:04, Tom Lane wrote: > I've pushed this patch into the 9.5 branch, so it should be possible to > spin dory up on that branch now. Thanks Tom! Thanks everyone else for your input on the issue! Regards, Haroon -- Haroon

Re: Patch missing from back branches

2018-05-01 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: >> There is dory in the buildfarm which compiles using VS 2015, but it runs >> only 9.6 and newer versions. > That would be specifically because compiling 9.5 didn't work.. We'd be > happy to have dory

Re: Patch missing from back branches

2018-04-30 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan writes: > Well, the commit suggests that we should be guided by what the buildfarm > did, and then we never followed that up. I'd say in the light of > experience we should backpatch it to the remaining live branches. There are other VS2015 patches

Re: Patch missing from back branches

2018-04-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 04/26/2018 01:29 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:06:09AM +0500, Haroon wrote: >> Apparently the following patch[1] got committed to head only (9.6 at the >> time) and never made it into back branches i.e. 9.5, 9.4 and 9.3. Is it an >> oversight ? >> >> [1] >>

Re: Patch missing from back branches

2018-04-28 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, * Michael Paquier (mich...@paquier.xyz) wrote: > There is dory in the buildfarm which compiles using VS 2015, but it runs > only 9.6 and newer versions. That would be specifically because compiling 9.5 didn't work.. We'd be happy to have dory running on older major versions, if

Re: Patch missing from back branches

2018-04-25 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:06:09AM +0500, Haroon wrote: > Apparently the following patch[1] got committed to head only (9.6 at the > time) and never made it into back branches i.e. 9.5, 9.4 and 9.3. Is it an > oversight ? > > [1] >

Patch missing from back branches

2018-04-25 Thread Haroon
Apparently the following patch[1] got committed to head only (9.6 at the time) and never made it into back branches i.e. 9.5, 9.4 and 9.3. Is it an oversight ? [1] http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/868628e4fd44d75987d6c099ac63613cc5417629 Regards, Haroon -- Haroon