Re: ERRORDATA_STACK_SIZE panic crashes on Windows
От | Magnus Hagander |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ERRORDATA_STACK_SIZE panic crashes on Windows |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20080527204357.6db64361@mha-laptop.hagander.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ERRORDATA_STACK_SIZE panic crashes on Windows (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ERRORDATA_STACK_SIZE panic crashes on Windows
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> We can either add a configure test or say that we don't support > >> such old versions of gettext ... > > > Or we could just #ifdef the whole thing to win32, since it's not > > really needed on other platforms, pushing that decision to later... > > (when that version of gettext will be even more obsolete) > > That would work for the moment, but we're almost certainly going to > have to insist on bind_textdomain_codeset being available eventually; > AFAICS there's no hope of multi-locale/multi-encoding support without > it. Yes, that's why I said it would only push the decision to the future. Perhaps doing this #ifdef would be a good idea for back-branches, and then we look at one of the other solutions for 8.4? > I was considering either: > > 1. Add a probe for bind_textdomain_codeset to configure, and > conditionalize the new patch on HAVE_BIND_TEXTDOMAIN_CODESET. > > 2. Adjust the AC_SEARCH_LIBS call to probe for > bind_textdomain_codeset() instead of gettext() as it does now. This > would have the effect of rejecting pre-0.10.36 versions of the > library. Depending on the buildfarm issue it may be that the software is antique enough that almost only Bruce runs such an old version. If so, I think #2 is just fine (except in back branches, of course) > Magnus' suggestion gives a third possibility. > > I notice that the PGAC_CHECK_GETTEXT macro already contains the > comment dnl FIXME: We should probably check for version >=0.10.36. > So depending on what that's about, there might be some other good > reasons to go with choice #2. Peter, it appears you put that comment > in when you first added the macro, on 2001-06-02. Do you remember > why? Could it possibly be for this very reason? //Magnus
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: