Re: [HACKERS] Notes about fixing regexes and UTF-8 (yet again)

I don't believe it is valid to ignore CJK characters above U+2. If it is used for names, it will be stored in the database. If the behaviour is different from characters below U+, you will get a bug report in meanwhile. see CJK Extension B, C, and D from http://www.unicode.org/charts/ Al

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, > FYI I've been testing with the attached patch. > We'll need to construct a configure test for HAVE_CRTDEFS_H. Isn't it enough to add the name in configure.in and run autoconf to update configure and autoheaders to update pg_config.h.in? The check of win32 before large file perhaps should a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

tion: Binary data On 2011/12/05, at 1:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 12/04/2011 06:31 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 09:14, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I found error on #define stat _stat64 occurs

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

it to our own implementation that is. Is there any simple test program that determines if the pgwin32_safestat is required or the library stat is sufficient? I presume the stat is a library function and therefore it depends on the compiler rather than the WIN32 platform as a whole. On 2011/12/04,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

ompile. The versions coming with pre-packaged repository catalogues of 20110802 (gcc 4.5.2) and latest catalogue (gcc-4.6.1-2) compiles successfully. On 2011/12/04, at 9:45, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 12/03/2011 06:12 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> >> On

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

nt should have no harm as far as they have crtdefs.h. (Again, this is I think it should, and not tested with real tools.) On 2011/12/03, at 23:20, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 09:24, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> A new patch: >> check

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

32 gcc version 4.5.4 20110812 mingw-w64 x86_64-w64-mingw32 gcc version 4.7.0 20110827 mingw64-32bitpatch.diff Description: Binary data On 2011/12/02, at 1:29, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 11/27/2011 09:18 AM, NISHIYAMA Tomoaki wrote: >> Hi, >> >>>>>> +

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, +/* __MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR is related to both 32/64 bit gcc compiles by + * mingw-w64, however it gots defined only after Why not use __MINGW32__, which is defined without including any headers? >> >> Because it's defined by other than mingw-w64 compilers. > > I see. That's b

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, >>> For the win32.h, I really don't understand why _WINSOCKAPI_ was defined >>> before >>> >>> some google suggests that defining _WINSOCKAPI_ before prevents >>> inclusion of winsock.h but that does not have relation to inclusion of >>> and if is included first, it should be ok. >>> >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, > The way to build natively with a mingw-w64 compiler is doumented fairly > simply at > : > > To build 64 bit binaries using MinGW, install the 64 bit tool set > from http://mingw-w6

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] PostgreSQL fails to build with 32bit MinGW-w64

Hi, Isn't it better to check the value of macros itsef rather than checking for system dependent macros that does not directly relate to the issue? specifically for getaddrinfo.c case I think #if EAI_NODATA != EAI_NONAME is a better check than checking for #if !defined(__MINGW64_VERSION_MAJOR) &&