Re: MSVC: Improve warning options set

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>, Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: MSVC: Improve warning options set
Date: 2025-11-08 21:58:23
Message-ID: 1515268.1762639103@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:
> What we should do to make this clearer and avoid spurious problem
> reports is error out unless you're on UCRT, but a patch for that got
> stuck waiting for the Debian images used on CI to be upgraded to
> Debian trixie, because that shipped the necessary newer
> MinGW/headers/etc in its cross-build packages. That has now happened,
> so we should probably go ahead with something like the patch I posted
> here:

> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKG%2BQJv-g7C2APVV7O_jEJkxH1AmvgAe8X2vDR8mRdSKn3A%40mail.gmail.com#e6d0c91e2f59e6e39eb61095da4cc598

+1

> In theory we could even back-patch that to 18, since we already know
> it won't fully work and we already declared that we don't support it.
> Or we could just let sleeping dogs lie and do that for 19.

I don't quite understand how 1758d4244 didn't break building with
MSVCRT? But if it builds yet doesn't in fact work, that's likely to
draw complaints from people who didn't spot the documentation change.
So I'd lean towards back-patching.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2025-11-08 22:50:39 Re: IO in wrong state on riscv64
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2025-11-08 21:40:26 Re: MSVC: Improve warning options set