On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:59 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2018-08-21 17:58:00 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 08/21/2018 04:49 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2018-08-21 11:09:15 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > On 08/21/2018 11:06 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > XP at least is essentially a dead platform for us. My animals are not > > > > able to build anything after release 10. > > > I wouldn't think XP should even be on our list anymore. Microsoft hasn't > > > supported it in 4 years. > > XP isn't the only thing relevant here, vista and 2008 R1 are in the same > > class. > > > > > I do have a machine in my laptop graveyard with Vista. The only WS2008 > instace I have available is R2 and AWS doesn't seem to have any AMIs for R1. > > Honestly, I don't think these matter terribly much. Anyone building now is > not likely to be targeting them.
I agree, I think we should just decree that the minimum is MSVC 2013 and that people building 12 need to deal with that. I would personally *additionally* would say that we officially don't support *running* (not compiling) on XP, 2003, 2008R1 and Vista (all unsupported by MS) - but that's a somewhat orthogonal decision.
We build windows binaries (>=9.3) on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2012 R2. For 9.3, the Visual Studio version is 2010 and for 9.4 and v10, we use 2013. For v11, we use 2017.
