Re: Should we excise the remnants of borland cc support?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we excise the remnants of borland cc support?
Date: 2014-09-23 00:51:01
Message-ID: 1413.1411433461@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2014-09-20 10:03:43 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> I thought the Borland stuff was there only so we could build client
>> libraries for use with things like Delphi.

> FWIW I got offlist reports of two not subscribed people that they simply
> use the normal libpq dll from delphi. Copying it from pgadmin or the pg
> installer.

Whether or not it's really needed to preserve the ability to build libpq
with borland, I'm just about certain that it's never worked to build the
backend with borland (thus explaining the lack of buildfarm members).
So it should be safe enough to strip support appearing in backend-only
header files.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2014-09-23 01:25:51 Re: RLS feature has been committed
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2014-09-23 00:24:21 Re: WITH CHECK OPTION bug [was RLS Design]