On Fri, Jul 08, 2022 at 07:38:23AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> And with 495ed0e now in place, attached is a rebased version.
Hearing nothing about this one, and because it is a nice cleanup
overall, I have gone ahead and applied it:
14 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 177 deletions(-)
This re
On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 04:48:22PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> After looking at that again, the whole comment related to VS in
> strtof.c can be removed. I have noticed while on it more places that
> still referred to VS2013 in ./configure[.ac] and win32_langinfo() got
> an overall incorrect d
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 05:50:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The comments about that in win32_port.h and cygwin.h only date back
> to 2019, so it seems unlikely that the situation has changed much.
> We could try removing HAVE_BUGGY_STRTOF to see if the buildfarm
> complains, but I wouldn't bet mone
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:43:11AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
>> Maybe consider removing this workaround? The original problem report
>> indicated
>> that it didn't affect later versions:
>>
>> src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c: /* This apparently-useless variabl
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 10:43:11AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Ah, thanks. I forgot to grep for those patterns. Good catches.
> Maybe consider removing this workaround? The original problem report
> indicated
> that it didn't affect later versions:
>
> src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c:
Maybe consider removing this workaround? The original problem report indicated
that it didn't affect later versions:
src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c: /* This apparently-useless variable
dodges a compiler bug in VS2013: */
I'm not sure if it's worth removing this one, though:
src/port/st
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:06:50AM +0200, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:27 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>> At the end, this would
>> mean dropping support for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 as
>> run-time environments as listed in [1], which are not supported
>> o
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 10:06:50AM +0200, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> Right now we are ifdefing that code out for MinGW, so it's not a visible
> issue, but it'll be when we do.
OK. Thanks, got it.
--
Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 2:27 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> @@ -1757,7 +1757,7 @@ get_collation_actual_version(char collprovider,
> const char *collcollate)
> collcollate,
> GetLastError(;
> }
> -collversion = psprintf(
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 06:26:20PM +0200, Juan José Santamaría Flecha wrote:
> This is because current MinGW defaults to Windows 2003 [1], maybe we should
> fix Windows' minimal version to Vista (0x0600) unconditionally also. I have
> seen a couple of compilation warnings while testing that setting
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 8:58 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
>
> The patch attached cleans up the following things proper to VS 2013:
> - Locale handling.
> - MIN_WINNT assignment.
> - Some strtof() business, as of win32_port.h.
> - Removal of _set_FMA3_enable() in main.c related to floating-point
> op
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:46:31PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Looking at the published lifecycle info, 2017 is the oldest still in
>> 'mainstream' support[4], so it wouldn't be too crazy to drop VS 2015
>> too, just like those other projects. That said, it sounds like
On 2022-05-16 Mo 06:34, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:46:31PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> Looking at the published lifecycle info, 2017 is the oldest still in
>> 'mainstream' support[4], so it wouldn't be too crazy to drop VS 2015
>> too, just like those other projects. T
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 08:46:31PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Looking at the published lifecycle info, 2017 is the oldest still in
> 'mainstream' support[4], so it wouldn't be too crazy to drop VS 2015
> too, just like those other projects. That said, it sounds like there
> is no practical benef
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 6:58 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Cutting support for now-unsupported versions of Windows is in the air
> for a couple of months, and while looking at the code a first cleanup
> that looked rather obvious to me is the removal of support for VS
> 2013, as of something to do f
Hi all,
Cutting support for now-unsupported versions of Windows is in the air
for a couple of months, and while looking at the code a first cleanup
that looked rather obvious to me is the removal of support for VS
2013, as of something to do for v16~.
The website of Microsoft has only documentati
16 matches
Mail list logo
