Re: Should we excise the remnants of borland cc support?

<p dir="ltr"><br /> On Sep 23, 2014 2:51 AM, "Tom Lane" <<a
href="mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us</a>>wrote:<br /> ><br /> > Andres Freund <<a
href="mailto:andres@2ndquadrant.com">andres@2ndquadrant.com</a>>writes:<br /> > > On 2014-09-20 10:03:43
-0400,Andrew Dunstan wrote:<br /> > >> I thought the Borland stuff was there only so we could build client<br
/>> >> libraries for use with things like Delphi.<br /> ><br /> > > FWIW I got offlist reports of two
notsubscribed people that they simply<br /> > > use the normal libpq dll from delphi. Copying it from pgadmin or
thepg<br /> > > installer.<br /> ><br /> > Whether or not it's really needed to preserve the ability to
buildlibpq<br /> > with borland, I'm just about certain that it's never worked to build the<br /> > backend with
borland(thus explaining the lack of buildfarm members).<br /> > So it should be safe enough to strip support
appearingin backend-only<br /> > header files.<br /> ><br /><p dir="ltr">The backend has never built with
borland.<p dir="ltr">I'm pretty sure I suggested we drop borland support completely a few years ago but people felt it
wasntcosting enough to warrant a drop at the time. Things may have changed now, but even without that we  can
definitelydrop the backend side of things. <p dir="ltr">/Magnus