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 20160701005732.GA292354@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)  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 30 June 2016 at 20:19, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> It's fine for a pure 32-bit build, i.e. 32-bit tools and 32-bit target. I
> tested that.

Ah, okay.  I doubt it's worth setting up buildfarm members testing all
cross-compiles just to try and catch possible compiler bugs that way, so
unless somebody wants to invest more effort in this area, it seems we're
done here.

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?