Re: libpq naming on Win64

Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> writes:
>>> After chatting with Magnus, we feel that a good solution would be to
>>> rename libpq on Win64 to libpq64.dll to distinguish it from the 32 bit
>>> equivalent.
>> Isn't that going to break applications? Where by "break" I mean
>> "have to explicitly link with 'libpq64', thereby rendering them
>> unportable to any other platform".
>
> I'm really not concerned about that - a build rule to link with the
> right library based on pointer size is trivial.
>
>> I would have thought Microsoft would have a better solution than this
>> for managing 64-bit libraries. Or am I too optimistic about Redmond's
>> competence?
>
> They have two separate installation directories for 32 and 64 bit
> packages. With PostgreSQL though, we'll quite possibly be shipping
> both 32 and 64 bit components in the same installer, and thus going
> into the same installation directory. We may have no choice about
> that, as we can't force all the dependent libraries to add 64 bit
> support when we need it.

Maybe I'm missing the point and have a question.

For example, do 32bit psql and the 64bit one have the same name?
If so, where will they be installed?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue