Re: src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: src/interfaces/libpq shipping nmake-related Makefiles
Date: 2017-04-07 04:12:09
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2017-04-07 13:07:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Still, it's not very clear why we need to cater for building just libpq
> > rather than the whole distribution, and a user of win32.mak presumably
> > has the option to do the latter. The core argument for bcc32.mak,
> > I think, is that we never did support building the server with Borland C
> > ... but there's no evidence that people are still building libpq with it
> > either.
> Indeed. Those recent reports indicate that removing win32.c would be a
> bad move.

For me they indicate the contrary, that we're currently not properly
maintaining it so that longstanding errors crop up.

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tatsuro Yamada 2017-04-07 04:12:31 Minor code improvement to postgresGetForeignPlan
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-07 04:11:59 Re: Faster methods for getting SPI results (460% improvement)