On 04/23/2016 11:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 04/23/2016 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>>> On 04/23/2016 05:30 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
>>>>> In this case, I would prefer this:
>>>>>
>>>>> #ifdef WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER
>>>>> -typedef int pid_t;
>>>>> +typedef intptr_t pid_t;
>>>>> #endif
>>>> That's a change that will have a pretty wide effect. Everything up to
>>>> now has been pretty low risk, but this worries me rather more. Maybe
>>>> it's safe, but I'd like to hear others' comments.
>>> Yeah, it makes me a bit nervous too.
>> One other thought: even if this is safe for HEAD, I think we could
>> *not* back-patch it into 9.5, because it would amount to an ABI
>> break on Windows anywhere that pid_t is used in globally visible
>> structs or function signatures. (Maybe there are no such places,
>> but I doubt it.) So we'd need to go with the messy-cast solution
>> for 9.5.
>
>
>
> It's not that messy. I'm inclined just to make minimal changed to
> pg_basebackup.c and be done with it. I don't think a compiler warning
> is worth doing more for.
>
>
OK, here's my final version of the patch, which I will apply in 24 hours
or so unless there is an objection.
cheers
andrew
