Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEy8ex+aFJEjBPAYKXSKhiXJ76vxBTLJqPshHNaUSvGqpw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Supporting huge pages on Windows (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 6:11 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> With that, I'm pushing this. Let's see what the buildfarm thinks of it. And
> if others end up complaining about the platform drop, but I doubt that.
frogmouth:
pg_shmem.c: In function 'PGSharedMemoryCreate':
pg_shmem.c:205:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'GetLargePageMinimum'
pg_shmem.c:222:38: error: 'SEC_LARGE_PAGES' undeclared (first use in this function)
pg_shmem.c:222:38: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
make[3]: *** [pg_shmem.o] Error 1
so you were right to guess that this functionality isn't in XP.
I wonder whether this could be band-aided around by using "#ifdef
SEC_LARGE_PAGES" to protect the new code. I have no particular desire to
spend effort on supporting old Windows versions, but if there's someone
out there who does, they could be asked to look into that.
I think that is not actually XP, in this case it's a case of the SDK being too old. Which *might* happen on mingw on a modern platform as well.
The question is do we care enough. Or do we just declare XP as unsupported, in which case frogmouth should stop building master.
I think the second one is OK, as long as it's only things that are as old as XP. But I think we have to wait for a modre modern mingw (jacana?) to complete before we can be sure.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: