On 01/03/2011 12:43 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 18:15, Andrew Dunstan<andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>> The following patch allows me to build the 8.3 and 8.4 branches using Visual
>> Studio 2008, once the build system is patched. But I don't really know why.
>> HEAD and 9.0 build fine without it. But those branches branches fail with a
>> complaint about IPPROTO_IPV6 being undefined.
>> The patch seems harmless enough. But I'd like to know why it's happening.
>> Does anyone have a clue?
> Umm. Since when do we backpatch new features/platforms?
> I don't know exactly why that is happening, but it's a good indicator
> that backpatching it isn't necessarily safe - what else can be missed?
This isn't a new platform, any more than a new version of gcc is a new
platform. And I certainly don't understand your reference to new
features. I'm not suggesting backporting one.
I'm not going to maintain more than one buildfarm member doing MSVC, and
and if we were to adopt your policy I would not be able to use a
modern-ish version of the compiler/SDK and also build all the live
branches. That seems quite unnecessary. If we'd backported the changes
to support VS2008 when they were made a year or two ago, as we should
have (the changes are pretty trivial), we'd probably have discovered
this back then.
I'm putting in this effort because Tom complained about lack of
buildfarm coverage that occurred when I recently lost the machine my
buildfarm members were running on, and I'm trying to get back the
coverage they had.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-01-03 18:18:57|
|Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-01-03 17:50:39|
|Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about