From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add transforms feature |
Date: | 2015-04-29 04:47:21 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ+=1O8FDSWoMjc8GU3Dfqqm9HDhAf0Ye=Xp01aukr=mQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 5:15 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On 4/28/15 4:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Do we actually have a Windows machine building with Python3?
>>
>>
>> The answer seems to be "probably not". When I tried enabling this with
>> bowerbird I got a ton of errors like these:
>>
>> plpy_cursorobject.obj : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol
>> PyObject_SelfIter [C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql\plpython3.vcxproj]
>> plpy_cursorobject.obj : error LNK2019: unresolved external symbol
>> __imp_PyType_Ready referenced in function PLy_cursor_init_type
>> [C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql\plpython3.vcxproj]
>>
>>
>> Something else to fix I guess.
>
> I think at least at one point the community Windows binaries built by
> EnterpriseDB were built against Python 3 (which upset some users). But
> they might not be using the msvc toolchain.
Er, aren't you simply trying to link with 32b libraries while building
in a 64b environment? I am able to make the build work with python 3.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-04-29 12:01:36 | Re: shared_libperl, shared_libpython |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-04-29 03:48:20 | Re: shared_libperl, shared_libpython |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2015-04-29 06:10:10 | Re: Custom/Foreign-Join-APIs (Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API) |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-04-29 04:30:58 | Re: BUG #13126: table constraint loses its comment |