Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah ... however, if that's there, then there's something wrong with
>> Ashutosh's explanation, because that means we *are* building with
>> _USE_32BIT_TIME_T in 32-bit builds. It's just getting there in a
>> roundabout way. (Or, alternatively, this code is somehow not doing
>> anything at all.)
> I don't follow.
The stanzas you pointed to in the MSVC build scripts should mean that
a 32-bit PG build is using _USE_32BIT_TIME_T, no? And Ashutosh stated
that he saw _USE_32BIT_TIME_T in "perl -V" output. So how are they
not ending up compatible?
Now, if that statement was wrong and his 32-bit Perl actually *isn't*
built with _USE_32BIT_TIME_T, then this is clearly what's causing the
>> Really? We try to avoid touching "time_t" at all in most of the code.
>> I bet that we could drop the above-cited code, and compile only plperl
>> with _USE_32BIT_TIME_T, taken (if present) from the Perl flags, and
>> it'd be fine. At least, that's my first instinct for what to try.
> Oh. Well, if that's an OK thing to do, then sure, wfm. I guess we've
> got pg_time_t plastered all over the backend but that's not actually
> time_t under the hood, so it's fine. I do see time_t being used in
> frontend code, but that won't matter for this.
Yeah. I think this should work as long as plperl itself doesn't use
time_t, or at least doesn't exchange time_t with any other part of the
system, and since we don't use that type in any common APIs that seems
like an OK assumption.
regards, tom lane
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: