Horton

Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 2014-02-02T01:17:49Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. MinGW: Link with shell32.dll instead of shfolder.dll.

  2. Centralize getopt-related declarations in a new header file pg_getopt.h.

  3. Get rid of use of dlltool in Mingw builds.

  4. Export a few more symbols required for test_shm_mq module.

  5. Export set_latch_on_sigusr1 symbol for Windows.

  6. Use SHGetFolderPath instead of SHGetSpecialFolderPath to find the

On 02/01/2014 08:03 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I happened to notice today that the owner of buildfarm member narwhal
> is trying to revive it after a long time offline, but it's failing in
> the 9.3 branch (and not attempting to build HEAD, yet).  The cause
> appears to be that contrib/postgres_fdw is referencing the DateStyle
> and IntervalStyle variables, which aren't marked PGDLLIMPORT.
> Hm, well, that would be an easy change ... but that code was committed
> last March.  How is it that we didn't notice this long ago?
>
> What this seems to indicate is that narwhal is the only buildfarm
> animal that has a need for PGDLLIMPORT marks on global variables that
> are referenced by extensions.  Furthermore, nobody has attempted to
> build 9.3 on a platform that needs that (or at least they've not
> reported failure to us).
>
> According to the buildfarm database, narwhal is running a gcc build on
> Windows 2003.  That hardly seems like a mainstream use case.  I could
> believe that it might be of interest to developers, but clearly no
> developers are actually running such a build.
>
> I think we should give serious consideration to desupporting this
> combination so that we can get rid of the plague of PGDLLIMPORT
> marks.  Obviously this would depend on confirming that there are
> no more-interesting Windows build methods that require it --- but
> if there are any, I'd sure demand that there be an active buildfarm
> instance to keep us from breaking the case again in future.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> 			


I don't think that it's Windows 2003 that matters so much here as the 
fact that it's a very old version of gcc. For example, my fairly old 
buildfarm animal frogmouth, which will be decommissioned soon when 
WindowsNT is totally unsupported, runs gcc 4.5.0, whereas narwhal runs 
3.4.2. If anyone is really using such an old version, I think they 
should stop, immediately.


cheers

andrew