| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, sandeep(dot)thakkar(at)enterprisedb(dot)com, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Date: | 2018-08-21 17:46:10 |
| Message-ID: | 20572.1534873570@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-www |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-08-21 13:29:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We've got a buildfarm handy that could answer the question.
>> Let's just stick a test function in there for a day and see
>> which animals fail.
> I think we pretty much know the answer already, anything before 2013
> will fail.
Do we know that for sure? I thought it was theoretical.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-21 17:54:29 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-21 17:31:23 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-21 17:54:29 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-08-21 17:31:23 | Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c) |