Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)
Date
Msg-id 20160630121903.GA236010@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)  (Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 30 June 2016 at 07:21, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Thanks for investigating!  I'll go commit that change.  I wish someone
> > >> would put up a buildfarm critter using VS2013, though.
> >
> > > Uh, isn't that what woodlouse is using?
> >
> > Well, it wasn't reporting this crash, so there's *something* different.

> It may only affect the i386 to x86_64 cross compiler. If Woodlouse is using
> native x86_64 compilers perhaps that's why?

Hmm, so what about a pure 32bit build, if such a thing still exists?  If
so and it causes the same crash, perhaps we should have one member for
each VS version running on 32bit x86.

(I note that the coverage of MSVC versions has greatly improved in
recent months.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: 10.0
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: A couple of cosmetic changes around shared memory code