On 2017-04-07 13:07:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Still, it's not very clear why we need to cater for building just libpq > > rather than the whole distribution, and a user of win32.mak presumably > > has the option to do the latter. The core argument for bcc32.mak, > > I think, is that we never did support building the server with Borland C > > ... but there's no evidence that people are still building libpq with it > > either. > > Indeed. Those recent reports indicate that removing win32.c would be a > bad move.
For me they indicate the contrary, that we're currently not properly maintaining it so that longstanding errors crop up. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers