On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 1:43 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:32:31AM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> > I realised that there is another aspect to this: it must be impossible
> > to build PostgreSQL with the original MinGW/MSYS project by now. I
> > don't understand the history of the MinGW/MinGW-w64 fork, but if
> > they're both still live projects out there adding to the general
> > confusion about the frankenwindows multiverse, we should clarify our
> > situation. As far as I know, we're only testing the second thing, and
> > only the second thing can use UCRT, and only the second thing is a
> > viable alternative toolchain for software that is primarily targeting
> > current Visual Studio, which I think is something we can say about our
> > project. Right?
>
> FWIW, I am not seeing any advantage in mentioning MinGW at all at this
> stage, just extra maintenance burden. As far as I know, MinGW is a
> gcc port that has only a 32b implementation. MinGW-w64 is built on
> top of it and it includes *both* 32b and 64b implementations, as you
> say, with more WIN32 APIs than the former.
>
> So +1 to simplify a bit that stuff.
Thanks. I'm going to have a go at adjusting the docs myself so I can
get this committed. Invitation remains open for someone closer to the
topic to rewrite in a later commit as required for maximum utility to
the reader (I'm never going to install MSYS2, or Windows, I just want
to blow away as much dead code as possible here as it's in the way of
multithreading and other modernisation projects).
