On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 02:42:24AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Michael Paquier
> > <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Now, I have produced two patches:
> > > - 0001-Support-for-VS-2015-locale-hack.patch, which makes use of
> > > __crt_locale_data_public in ucrt/corecrt.h. This is definitely an ugly
> > > hack, though I am coming to think that this may be the approach that
> > > would us the less harm, and that's closer to what is done for VS 2012
> > > and 2013.
> > > - 0001-Support-for-VS-2015-getlocaleinfoex.patch, which make use of
> > > GetLocaleInfoEx, this requires us to lower a bit the support grid for
> > > Windows, basically that's throwing support for XP if compilation is
> > > done with VS 2015.
> > > Based on my tests, both are working with short and long local names,
> > > testing via initdb --locale.
> >
> > The first patch is actually not what I wanted to send. Here are the
> > correct ones...
>
> This thread seems to have stalled. I thought we were going to consider
> these patches for 9.6.
Committers have given this thread's patches a generous level of consideration.
At this point, if $you wouldn't back-patch them to at least 9.5, they don't
belong in 9.6. However, a back-patch to 9.3 does seem fair, assuming the
final patch looks anything like the current proposals.
> Should we simply push them to see what the
> buildfarm thinks?
No. The thread has been getting suitable test reports for a few weeks now.
If it were not, better to make the enhancement wait as long as necessary than
to use the buildfarm that way. Buildfarm results wouldn't even be pertinent;
they would merely tell us whether the patch broke non-VS 2015 compilers.
nm
