Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:36 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2016-04-22 20:39:27 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote: >>> While doing that I discovered that unpatched master doesn't actually >>> build on recent NetBSD systems because our static function strtoi >>> clashes with a non-standard libc function of the same name declared >>> in inttypes.h. Maybe we should rename it, like in the attached?
>> Yuck. That's a new function they introduced? That code hasn't changed in >> a while.... > Yes, according to the man page it appeared in NetBSD 7.0. That was > released in September 2015, and our buildfarm has only NetBSD 5.x > systems. I see that the maintainers of the NetBSD pg package deal > with this with a preprocessor kludge: > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/databases/postgresql95/patches/patch-src_backend_utils_adt_datetime.c?rev=1.1 > What is the policy for that kind of thing -- do nothing until someone > cares enough about the platform to supply a buildfarm animal? There's no set policy, but certainly a promise to put up a buildfarm animal would establish that somebody actually cares about keeping Postgres running on the platform. Without one, we might fix a specific problem when reported, but we'd have no way to know about new problems. Rooting through that patches directory reveals quite a number of random-looking patches, most of which we certainly wouldn't take without a lot more than zero explanation. It's hard to tell which are actually needed, but at least some don't seem to have anything to do with building for NetBSD. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers