Обсуждение: drop src/backend/port/darwin/system.c ?
/* only needed in OS X 10.1 and possibly early 10.2 releases */ Maybe it's time to let it go? -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> /* only needed in OS X 10.1 and possibly early 10.2 releases */
> Maybe it's time to let it go?
One part of me says it's not hurting anything, but another part
says that if it were broken we wouldn't know. And it looks like
we can drop that whole subdirectory if we kill it, so let's.
regards, tom lane
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> /* only needed in OS X 10.1 and possibly early 10.2 releases */ >> Maybe it's time to let it go? > > One part of me says it's not hurting anything, but another part > says that if it were broken we wouldn't know. And it looks like > we can drop that whole subdirectory if we kill it, so let's. I've discovered that when I build the source tree with coverage enabled, the fact that that directory ends up containing a .o file with no code in it breaks things. This is no doubt a bug in some part of the code coverage toolchain, but all the same I'll be happy if that file can go away. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> /* only needed in OS X 10.1 and possibly early 10.2 releases */
>>> Maybe it's time to let it go?
>> One part of me says it's not hurting anything, but another part
>> says that if it were broken we wouldn't know. And it looks like
>> we can drop that whole subdirectory if we kill it, so let's.
> I've discovered that when I build the source tree with coverage
> enabled, the fact that that directory ends up containing a .o file
> with no code in it breaks things. This is no doubt a bug in some part
> of the code coverage toolchain, but all the same I'll be happy if that
> file can go away.
Ah, well then it *is* hurting something.
Also, the early releases of OS X were rough enough that it's pretty hard
to believe anyone is still using them anywhere (certainly the buildfarm
isn't). So the odds of anyone caring if we remove this file seem
negligible. Let's nuke it.
regards, tom lane
On 8/17/16 12:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, the early releases of OS X were rough enough that it's pretty hard > to believe anyone is still using them anywhere (certainly the buildfarm > isn't). So the odds of anyone caring if we remove this file seem > negligible. Let's nuke it. done -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services