| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Doc: remove some long-obsolete information from installation.sgm |
| Date: | 2019-09-01 21:34:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4553.1567373656@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> Doc: remove some long-obsolete information from installation.sgml.
> - It is a fully native build and uses no additional software like
> - MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on the main
> - PostgreSQL web site.
> + The Visual C++ build is recommended, as it is fully native and uses no
> + additional software like MinGW. A ready-made installer is available on
> + the main PostgreSQL web site.
> Is this correct? MinGW builds are also native builds. The old wording
> was shaky but the new wording (inserting "... is recommended, as ...")
> makes it sound like that there is something wrong with the MinGW build
> compared to the MSVC build.
So did the old wording, it seemed to me. I'm happy to remove the sentence
altogether if there's no reason to be pushing people away from MinGW.
Should we also rethink the sentence I added at the top of the chapter,
pointing Windows people to chapter 17?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-09-02 00:50:03 | pgsql: Add overflow-safe math inline functions for unsigned integers |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-09-01 21:22:03 | pgsql: Fix compiler warning |