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

Re: win32.mak patch

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: win32.mak patch
Date: 2008-01-09 09:10:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On 08/01/2008, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:02:24AM +0900, Hiroshi Saito wrote:

> A question there though - do we care about the length of time_t on client
> platforms, or should we instead just disable the whole check for the
> client? AFAICS we don't expose time_t at all on the client, so why should
> we force libpq *clients* to build with 32-bit time_t? Shouldn't we go with
> the attached patch instead?

That makes sense to me - why dictate to client apps when we don't need
to. We can always change the check in the future in the unlikely event
that we do expose time_t - which I can't imagine being in anything
other than a major release.


In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-01-09 09:16:54
Subject: Re: win32.mak patch
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2008-01-09 08:47:09
Subject: Re: Fix for _outAgg()

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