From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | davinder singh <davindersingh2692(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PG compilation error with Visual Studio 2015/2017/2019 |
Date: | 2020-04-10 12:25:45 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+xF1qtt_EWiMTbpUoRow_EZN1CqXWhpE_GWjhGkrHm4A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 5:35 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 8:30 PM Juan José Santamaría Flecha
> <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > * I think you could save a couple of code lines, and make it clearer, by merging both tests on _MSC_VER into a single #if... #else and leaving as common code:
> > + }
> > + else
> > + return NULL;
> > +#endif /*_MSC_VER && _MSC_VER < 1900*/
> >
> > * The logic on "defined(_MSC_VER) && (_MSC_VER >= 1900)" is defined as "_WIN32_WINNT >= 0x0600" on other parts of the code. I would recommend using the later.
> >
>
> I see that we have used _MSC_VER form of checks in win32_langinfo
> (chklocale.c) for a similar kind of handling. So, isn't it better to
> be consistent with that? Which exact part of the code you are
> referring to?
>
I see that the kind of check you are talking is recently added by
commit 352f6f2d. I think it is better to be consistent in all places.
Let's pick one and use that if possible.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-04-10 12:52:03 | Re: SyncRepLock acquired exclusively in default configuration |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2020-04-10 12:05:38 | Re: Support for DATETIMEOFFSET |