From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christian Ullrich <chris(at)chrullrich(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc |
Date: | 2016-04-22 13:49:29 |
Message-ID: | 20926.1461332969@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> If we assume that oldstyle functions returning integer are still okay,
>> which the success of the regression test case involving oldstyle_length()
>> seems to prove, then indeed seg's bool-returning functions are the only
>> hazard.
> Your assumption is right. With the patch attached for contrib/seg/
> that converts all those functions to use the V1 declaration, I am able
> to make the tests pass. As the internal shape of the functions is not
> changed and that there are no functional changes, I guess that it
> would be fine to backpatch down to where VS2015 is intended to be
> supported. Is anybody here foreseeing any problems for back-branches
> if there is such a change?
It should be fine, since converting a function to V1 makes no difference
at the SQL level --- we don't need an extension script modification.
How far back are we thinking of supporting VS2015, anyway? I can check
and push this as a separate patch.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-04-22 13:58:06 | Re: VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-22 13:47:37 | Re: max_parallel_degree > 0 for 9.6 beta |