On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 05:10, Andrew Dunstan<and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Maybe for the time being we need to think about keeping scan.c in CVS. >>> It's not like scan.l gets updated all that often. >>> >> >> We could if we had to, though it amounts to saying that Windows-based >> developers don't get to touch the scanner. >> >> >> > > True, but I'm not going to invest a large number of cycles on porting this. > I'm not very happy about it either. I guess anyone wanting to develop on > Windows and affect the scanner could install Cygwin or MSys. I think requiring that for messing with the scanner is acceptable. As it is now, requiring that to do *any* development or compiling on HEAD, is a serious regression. FWIW, it seems the version that Andrew put up doesn't work in one of my test environments, and also not in at last one of Dave's. I will test it in my second test environment later today to be sure. -- Magnus Hagander Self: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
