On 04/23/2016 11:25 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 04/23/2016 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:I wrote:Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:On 04/23/2016 05:30 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:In this case, I would prefer this: #ifdef WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER -typedef int pid_t; +typedef intptr_t pid_t; #endifThat's a change that will have a pretty wide effect. Everything up to now has been pretty low risk, but this worries me rather more. Maybe it's safe, but I'd like to hear others' comments.Yeah, it makes me a bit nervous too.One other thought: even if this is safe for HEAD, I think we could *not* back-patch it into 9.5, because it would amount to an ABI break on Windows anywhere that pid_t is used in globally visible structs or function signatures. (Maybe there are no such places, but I doubt it.) So we'd need to go with the messy-cast solution for 9.5.It's not that messy. I'm inclined just to make minimal changed to pg_basebackup.c and be done with it. I don't think a compiler warning is worth doing more for.
OK, here's my final version of the patch, which I will apply in 24 hours or so unless there is an objection.
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers