Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022)
Date: 2025-12-15 11:15:36
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJaX3AcuKSdEUOZiWc+mzL=+dvGnbMqCvWGY22y6oh9Nw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 8:01 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> So their gettext handles PRIu64 and PRIu32 and nothing else.

Hah, I had predicted that three would work. Off by one.

> What to do now? I could revert 8c498479d and followups, but
> I sure don't want to. A stopgap measure to make the farm look
> green would be to add a variant expected-file that accepts
> this output, but yech. Thoughts?

So close yet so far... I tried asking if it's easy to fix:

https://github.com/sabotage-linux/gettext-tiny/issues/76

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2025-12-15 11:15:53 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Previous Message Oleg Tkachenko 2025-12-15 11:09:03 Re: [BUG] [PATCH] pg_basebackup produces wrong incremental files after relation truncation in segmented tables