From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Compilation issue on Solaris. |
Date: | 2022-09-06 04:24:25 |
Message-ID: | CAFBsxsGs2031SZoPiXUzLH5NZXJKfxUA8G-2qt0pcybQxFoS7Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 9:27 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Something bothers me about adding yet more clutter to every compile
> > line for the rest of time to solve a problem that exists only for
> > unpatched systems, and also that it's not even really a Solaris thing,
> > it's a C11 thing.
>
> I tend to agree with this standpoint: if it's only a warning, and
> it only appears in a small range of not-up-to-date Solaris builds,
> then a reasonable approach is "update your system if you don't want
> to see the warning".
>
> A positive argument for doing nothing is that there's room to worry
> whether -D__STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1__ might have any side-effects we
> *don't* want.
This is still listed in the CF as needing review, so I went and marked
it rejected.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2022-09-06 04:32:21 | Re: Modernizing our GUC infrastructure |
Previous Message | wangw.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2022-09-06 04:01:04 | RE: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |