Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bort, Paul wrote:
>>> so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone
>>> say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it?
>>
>> IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be
>> around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definitely older than
>> PG 7.3.
> 1.3 was announced in May 2001 according to the cygwin announce mailing
> list archives, so I think we can safely ignore the section in question.
OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens.
I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to
DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test
the results on Windows did the patch ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
