Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

On 10/14/2014 06:44 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> It seems we left this in broken state. Do we need to do more here to
>>> fix narwhal, or do we want to retire narwhal now? Something else? Are
>>> we waiting on someone in particular to do something specific?
>> I think we're hoping that somebody will step up and investigate how
>> narwhal's problem might be fixed. However, the machine's owner (Dave)
>> doesn't appear to have the time/interest to do that. That means that
>> our realistic choices are to retire narwhal or revert the linker changes
>> that broke it. Since those linker changes were intended to help expose
>> missing-PGDLLIMPORT bugs, I don't much care for the second alternative.
> It's a time issue right now I'm afraid (always interested in fixing bugs).
>
> However, if "fixing" it comes down to upgrading the seriously old
> compiler and toolchain on that box (which frankly is so obsolete, I
> can't see why anyone would want to use anything like it these days),
> then I think the best option is to retire it, and replace it with
> Windows 2012R2 and a modern release of MinGW/Msys which is far more
> likely to be similar to what someone would want to use at present.
>
> Does anyone really think there's a good reason to keep maintaining
> such an obsolete animal?
>

I do not. I upgraded from this ancient toolset quite a few years ago,
and I'm actually thinking of retiring what I replaced it with.

cheers

andrew