Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix and simplify check forwhether we're running as Windows serv - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix and simplify check forwhether we're running as Windows serv
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYjNydadKTDtSZQViKM+L38uNSbKgauRKotsBNhJc43Hw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix and simplify check forwhether we're running as Windows serv  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix and simplify check forwhether we're running as Windows serv  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I did some archeology, and found CheckTokenMembership() in MinGW's w32api
>> packages version 3.14
>> (https://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/MinGW/Base/w32api/w32api-3.14/,
>> in include/winbase.h). According to the timestamps on that download page,
>> that was released in 2009. That was the oldest version I could find, so it
>> might go even further back.
>>
>> Dave, do you know exactly what version of MinGW narwhal is running? And how
>> difficult is it to upgrade to something slightly more modern? Ease of
>> upgrade is another good data point on how far we need to support old
>> versions.
>
> Given that this was backpatched and that it broke narwhal in all
> branches, I think the solution needs to make narwhal work again without
> requiring it to upgrade; so we should acquire CheckTokenMembership via
> dynloading just like we do the other functions.  If we want to require a
> newer mingw version in pg10, that's acceptable, but it should be a
> separate patch.

+1 for not moving the minimum system requirements in the back-branches.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] increasing the default WAL segment size
Next
From: Teodor Sigaev
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree