From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Huong Dangminh <huo-dangminh(at)ys(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Jonathan Allen <jallen(at)americansavingslife(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, "pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "Akio Iwaasa" <aki-iwaasa(at)vt(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT |
Date: | 2018-05-18 18:11:52 |
Message-ID: | 29879.1526667112@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
I wrote:
> BTW, after further digging I am suspicious that this means that we need
> to propagate HAVE_STRTOLL and HAVE_STRTOULL into ecpg_config.h not only
> pg_config.h. I'm not totally sure which compiles include just the former
> not the latter.
After looking closer, ecpg only examines HAVE_STRTOLL and HAVE_STRTOULL
in ecpglib/data.c, which does include the main config file, so we should
be good on that.
> I'm going to wait and see if the buildfarm is unhappy before trying to
> change that, though. It will help prove whether we're actually getting
> useful test coverage.
Nonetheless, all the 32-bit buildfarm critters are falling over, and
the reason is now obvious: HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT isn't getting defined
in the test code, because neither pg_config.h nor ecpg_config.h ever
get included there.
As a stopgap measure, we could stick #include <ecpg_config.h> into
just that one test file. I notice however that there are more problems.
In particular, sqltypes.h supposes it has access to HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64,
which seems utterly naive.
It seems like really we need <ecpg_config.h> in sqltypes.h at least,
and if we don't want more bugs of the same ilk in future, it'd be
wise to stick it into something that's included by all ecpg-generated
code, like ecpglib.h. I am however worried about invasion of client
namespace if we do that, so not quite sure what to do here. Thoughts?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabrízio de Royes Mello | 2018-05-19 01:38:43 | postgres_fdw misbehaviour using "DELETE ... RETURNING *" |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-05-18 17:30:46 | Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT |