Re: Bogus HAVE_DECL_FOO entries in msvc/Solution.pm - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: Bogus HAVE_DECL_FOO entries in msvc/Solution.pm
Date
Msg-id YO1GcUp9IPVU9wuJ@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Bogus HAVE_DECL_FOO entries in msvc/Solution.pm  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Bogus HAVE_DECL_FOO entries in msvc/Solution.pm  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Bogus HAVE_DECL_FOO entries in msvc/Solution.pm  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 12:25:06AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> That's easy enough in v13 and up, which have 8f4fb4c64 so that
> Solution.pm looks like this.  We could make it consistent in older
> branches by manually hacking pg_config.h.win32 ... but I'm wondering
> if the smarter plan wouldn't be to back-patch 8f4fb4c64.  Without
> that, we're at risk of messing up anytime we back-patch something
> that involves a change in the set of configure-defined symbols, which
> we do with some regularity.

I was thinking to just do the easiest move and fix this issue down to
13, not bothering about older branches :p

Looking at the commit, a backpatch is not that complicated and it is
possible to check the generation of pg_config.h on non-MSVC
environments if some objects are missing.  Still, I think that it
would be better to be careful and test this code properly on Windows
with a real build.  It means that..  Err...  Andrew or I should look
at that.  I am not sure that the potential maintenance gain is worth
poking at the stable branches, to be honest.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Introduce pg_receivewal gzip compression tests
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Introduce pg_receivewal gzip compression tests