Re: Postgres Pro build for windows

23.11.2017 17:21, Dave Page пишет: > Hi > > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Ivan E. Panchenko > > wrote: > > > 23.11.2017 15:15, Dave Page пишет: >> Hi >> >> On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Ivan E. Panchenko >> > >> wrote: >> >> Hi Magnus, >> >> Sorry for slow reply. Our patch for windows GUI installers >> page is attached. >> >> >> From looking at the Github page, it looks like you are applying a >> number of patches to PostgreSQL. Is that correct? > Thanks for noticing them :) > > Mandatory patches are applied only to 9.2.14 and 9.4.9 versions. > > 9.2.14:  a postmaster shutdown when server is killed: > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/27520.1444682101%40sss.pgh.pa.us > > > (a patch by Tom Lane, later committed in 9.2 branch) > > 9.4.9: increase isolation between shared memory segments of > different postmaster instances (really a strange thing, probably > unnecessary) > Was not commited anywhere. > I've found it. Here is the discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1444920387.3661.7.camel%40postgrespro.ru#1444920387.3661.7.camel@postgrespro.ru Really something other was committed to solve the problem. > > > We can remove both, we do not want to bother the community with > this. Should we ? > > > I think so, if we're to list the packages on our main download pages. Ok,  now the abovementioned two patches are already removed. > > > Other patches are applied only when a special environment variable > is set, which is not done by default. > > > Do you mean they are only applied during the build process if the > envvar is set, or that they are activated at runtime if the envvar is > set? I think the former is fine, but not the latter. The envvar should be set at build time to include this patches. No runtime activation. Those additional patches are not included in the binaries distributed at the download page we suggest to list on postgresql.org. >> >> The reason I ask is that when EDB first started publishing the >> installers for postgresql.org , the >> agreement with the core team members present at the meeting was >> that we would be publishing pure, unmodified PostgreSQL. >> >> EDB never deviated from that policy (despite occasionally wanting >> to), and I don't think the community should change it now - if a >> fix/feature/whatever isn't in the PostgreSQL tarball, then it >> shouldn't be in what are advertised as endorsed "official" builds >> offered for download. >> >> For clarity, opinions are my own, and not necessarily those of EDB. >> >> -- >> Dave Page >> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >> Twitter: @pgsnake >> >> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > > > > -- > Dave Page > Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com > Twitter: @pgsnake > > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company Regards, Ivan Panchenko