From: | Juan José Santamaría Flecha <juanjo(dot)santamaria(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(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 15:05:26 |
Message-ID: | CAC+AXB3q34+SMkLZMrDobpJnTmeLBhmnBfz7KmpRG=FSppfaFw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 2:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Currently there are two constructs to test the same logic, which is not
great. I think that using _MSC_VER makes it seem as MSVC exclusive code,
when MinGW should also be considered.
In the longterm aligning Postgres with MS product obsolescence will make
these tests unneeded, but I can propose a patch for making the test
consistent in all cases, on a different thread since this has little to do
with $SUBJECT.
Regards,
Juan José Santamaría Flecha
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Kondratov | 2020-04-10 15:08:59 | Re: [HACKERS] make async slave to wait for lsn to be replayed |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-04-10 15:04:14 | pg_validatebackup -> pg_verifybackup? |