Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: back branches vs. VS 2008

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: back branches vs. VS 2008
Date: 2011-01-03 18:08:17
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 GrittnerDate: 2011-01-03 18:18:57
Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-01-03 17:50:39
Subject: Re: Re: new patch of MERGE (merge_204) & a question about duplicated ctid

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group