Re: Replication vs. float timestamps is a disaster

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 7:37 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The question to be asked is whether there is still anybody out there
>> using float timestamps.  I'm starting to get dubious about it myself.

> I'm wondering if it has any effect that pg_config.h.win32 says

> /* Define to 1 if you want 64-bit integer timestamp and interval support.
>    (--enable-integer-datetimes) */
> /* #undef USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES */

> Whereas pg_config.h.win32 says:

> /* Define to 1 if you want 64-bit integer timestamp and interval support.
>    (--enable-integer-datetimes) */
> #define USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES 1

Er, what?  For me, grep finds

src/include/pg_config.h.in: 836: #undef USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES
src/include/pg_config.h.win32: 630: /* #undef USE_INTEGER_DATETIMES */

> It looks like it was commit 2169e42bef9db7e0bdd1bea00b81f44973ad83c8
> that enabled integer datetimes by default, but that commit seems to
> not to have touched the Windows build scripts.  Commit
> fcf053d7829f2d83829256153e856f9a36c83ffd changed MSVC over to use
> integer datetimes by default, but I'm not clear if there's any build
> environment where we rely on config.h.win32 but not Solution.pm?

Any such build would find itself without a defined value of BLCKSZ,
to mention just one of the settings that get appended by Solution.pm.

It does look like we expect pg_config.h.win32 to be usable standalone
for libpq-only Windows compiles, but it would never work for building
the backend.  (I dunno whether the libpq-only scripts still work at
all or have bitrotted, but it's irrelevant for the question at hand.)

> If not, what exactly is pg_config.h.win32 for and to what degree does it
> need to be in sync with pg_config.h.in?  The list of differences
> appears to be far more extensive than the header comment at the top of
> pg_config.h.win32 would lead one to believe.

Yeah, I think the maintenance of pg_config.h.win32 has been a bit more
haphazard than one could wish.

			regards, tom lane