Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows
Date
Msg-id CABUevEy8ex+aFJEjBPAYKXSKhiXJ76vxBTLJqPshHNaUSvGqpw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers


On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> With that, I'm pushing this. Let's see what the buildfarm thinks of it. And
> if others end up complaining about the platform drop, but I doubt that.

frogmouth:

pg_shmem.c: In function 'PGSharedMemoryCreate':
pg_shmem.c:205:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'GetLargePageMinimum'
pg_shmem.c:222:38: error: 'SEC_LARGE_PAGES' undeclared (first use in this function)
pg_shmem.c:222:38: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
make[3]: *** [pg_shmem.o] Error 1

so you were right to guess that this functionality isn't in XP.

I wonder whether this could be band-aided around by using "#ifdef
SEC_LARGE_PAGES" to protect the new code.  I have no particular desire to
spend effort on supporting old Windows versions, but if there's someone
out there who does, they could be asked to look into that.

I think that is not actually XP, in this case it's a case of the SDK being too old. Which *might* happen on mingw on a modern platform as well.

The question is do we care enough. Or do we just declare XP as unsupported, in which case frogmouth should stop building master.

I think the second one is OK, as long as it's only things that are as old as XP. But I think we have to wait for a modre modern mingw (jacana?) to complete before we can be sure.

--

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Bogus tags for comments, ACLs, and security labels in pg_dump