Re: libpq naming on Win64

On Tuesday, January 5, 2010, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On tis, 2010-01-05 at 16:48 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > I would have thought Microsoft would have a better solution than this
>> > for managing 64-bit libraries.  Or am I too optimistic about Redmond's
>> > competence?
>>
>> They have two separate installation directories for 32 and 64 bit
>> packages. With PostgreSQL though, we'll quite possibly be shipping
>> both 32 and 64 bit components in the same installer, and thus going
>> into the same installation directory.
>
> Can't the installer install things into two separate directories?

Not really. Aside from looking really odd to the end user, the
installer is either running in 64 or 32 bit mode, and Windows may
apply path redirection so the installer doesn't even see the other
path.

Also, given that there are likely to be other 32 bit-only apps using
libpq for quite some time, having both builds will be genuinely
useful.

The only other option that seems feasible might be to have a seperate
bin dir in the main installation directory for 32 bit libraries, but
that'll be pretty ugly. Mind you, on reflection that may be required
if any dependency libraries have the same name.

/D

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com