Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)
Date: 2025-11-19 02:28:35
Message-ID: 1372793.1763519315@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> We don't even test -Dnls on the Windows CI task, so the fact that it
> passes there doesn't mean much (if our tests would even pick up
> <PRI*64> expansion failure, not sure). We should probably do
> something about that and/or its absence from the build farm. We're
> effectively counting on the EDB packaging team or end users to tell us
> if we break localisation on this platform.

I'm pretty certain that we do not test NLS localization at all,
anywhere :-(. (There are no test cases checking enable_nls,
which would be a necessary thing to not fail on buildfarm critters
not using NLS.)

I agree that starting to rely on PRI?64 in translatable strings
is raising the bar a good deal, so maybe it's time to do something
about that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2025-11-19 02:30:30 Re: make -C src/test/isolation failure in index-killtuples due to btree_gist
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-11-19 02:19:46 Re: Use merge-based matching for MCVs in eqjoinsel