Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The attached patch appears to solve the problem. However, while it
makes us conform to the first sentence below from the docs, it doesn't
comply with the second. Not sure what to do about that. Maybe there's
a better solution?
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should it be backported for the upcoming stable release(s)? Bruce and I
> were discussing this earlier.
Probably a good idea, since we do support psql on Windows even in the
older releases.
My personal opinion is to back-port only as far as 7.4, but i
Tom Lane said:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Should it be backported for the upcoming stable release(s)? Bruce and
>> I were discussing this earlier.
>
> Probably a good idea, since we do support psql on Windows even in the
> older releases.
>
> My personal opinion is to back-por
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, I think 7.4 should do. 7.3 users will still have the dos2unix workaround
> available. Are you going to do the 7.4 patch, or do you need me to? I
> normally only keep a HEAD tree checked out. A quick look at the cvsweb diffs
> suggests the patch sho
Tom Lane wrote:
"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
No, I think 7.4 should do. 7.3 users will still have the dos2unix workaround
available. Are you going to do the 7.4 patch, or do you need me to? I
normally only keep a HEAD tree checked out. A quick look at the cvsweb diffs
suggests t
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
If you're sure the code in that routine hasn't changed since 7.4, then I
can just apply the patch to that branch.
It has - the prompt changes in version 1.37. But I don't think that
conflict with this patch. I'll have a look this morning.
As expected:
Hunk
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >"Andrew Dunstan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>No, I think 7.4 should do. 7.3 users will still have the dos2unix workaround
> >>available. Are you going to do the 7.4 patch, or do you need me to? I
> >>normally only keep a HEAD tree ch
Bruce Momjian wrote:
One issue is that pre-8.0, psql files were opened in Win32 text mode, so
we wouldn't have seen this bug on Win32, but we would on Linux.
Because we open them on Win32 now in binary mode so we see control-Z it
will show up on Win32 too.
true, *BUT*
The patch is not platfo
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >One issue is that pre-8.0, psql files were opened in Win32 text mode, so
> >we wouldn't have seen this bug on Win32, but we would on Linux.
> >Because we open them on Win32 now in binary mode so we see control-Z it
> >will show up on Win32
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's the diff with 7.4 line numbers - tests fine for me.
Patch applied. Thanks for double-checking it.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading thro
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The patch is not platform-specific. It simply makes psql accept the same
> line endings on COPY FROM that the backend will accept - in effect it
> makes it line-end agnostic - this is a Good Thing (tm).
Strictly speaking it's not there yet --- psql st
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The attached patch appears to solve the problem. However, while it
>> makes us conform to the first sentence below from the docs, it doesn't
>> comply with the second. Not sure what to do about that. Maybe there's
>> a better solution?
> Attached pa
12 matches
Mail list logo
