Horton

Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT

Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>

View thread
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Hiroshi Inoue <inoue@tpf.co.jp>, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-10-14T22:59:50Z
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 10/14/2014 06:44 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.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