From: | Sandeep Thakkar <sandeep(dot)thakkar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paresh More <paresh(dot)more(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Patch - Tcl 8.6 version support for PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2017-04-25 05:54:40 |
Message-ID: | CANFyU95a6L7m8EERUdHzQB2S7pWFx5o2pfuEs0Zw4jDtVvhdDA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:59 AM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-04-24 16:18:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Sandeep Thakkar <
>> > sandeep(dot)thakkar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Tcl8.6 is already supported in PostgreSQL.
>> > >
>> >
>> > What commit added support for it?
>>
>> I don't think the main build mechanism requires explicit support of new
>> versions. configure just checks for some prerequisites.
>>
>
> Right - and they were adjusted here: https://git.postgresql.o
> rg/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=eaba54c20c5ab2cb6aaff
> a574444fd4990dfe2c7
>
> Right and it was back-patched till 9.2. But, it missed the changes
required for Windows build. So, can anyone please review those two patches
i.e Mkvcbuild_Tcl86_94-92.patch and Mkvcbuild_Tcl86_95-master.patch and
commit? With this patch, we could build the server with Tcl8.6 on Windows.
Thanks!
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
--
Sandeep Thakkar
EDB
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-04-25 05:57:39 | Re: Patch - Tcl 8.6 version support for PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Rémi Zara | 2017-04-25 05:53:02 | Re: Unportable implementation of background worker start |