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: 2025-11-23 03:25:56
Message-ID: 458106.1763868356@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:
> That'd leave only Cygwin with HAVE BUGGY_STRTOF. Perhaps they have
> fixed their implementation[1]? Here's an experimental patch to drop
> all remnants, which could be used to find out. No Windows/Cygwin
> here. Hmm, what if we just commit it anyway? If their strtof() is
> still broken and someone out there is running the tests and sees this
> test fail, why shouldn't they take that up with libc at this stage?

Hmm, we could get rid of the whole resultmap mechanism ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chao Li 2025-11-23 04:27:08 Re: Remove unused fields from BufferCacheNumaRec
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2025-11-23 03:10:15 Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)