Re: [HACKERS] NT port of PGSQL - success
От | Thomas G. Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] NT port of PGSQL - success |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 361CDBE9.EB6625AB@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: [HACKERS] NT port of PGSQL - success (Horak Daniel <horak@mmp.plzen-city.cz>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] NT port of PGSQL - success]
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> The problem is that there exists file PG_VERSION where is the current > version stored (now 6.4) in the directory ./data/base/template1 and > when the bootstrap code wants to create pg_version system table it > stops because the file with the "same" name already exists. > I think we should wait for the final 6.4 version (I hope it will be > soon available) and than make a patch against it and include it also > in the 6.5 development tree. Most of us aren't NT propellerheads, but now that a port might be available I'm sure the mailing lists will get more folks who are. Then a tremendous step forward such as you've take will be greeted with more enthusiasm :) > There are some open issues yet. > now some explanations: > - int8 - the libc does probably have no support for long long ints in > printf() There is a local definition for snprintf() which might have this support for you. Look in backend/port/snprintf.c > - run_ruletest - the difference is only in the name that is selected > from the tables > - many other tests failed due to not having the dynamicly loaded code > in DLLs Is DLL support so different that it will never work, or have you not had time to look at it? I would like to list NT as being "supported with patches, see web site" for the next release (or "partially supported..."). Is it premature to do that? Good work btw... - Tom
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: