Additional items for Win32 TODO list?

Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
From: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>
To: "'pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Additional items for Win32 TODO list?
Date: 2004-01-28 10:46:43
Message-ID: A02DEC4D1073D611BAE8525405FCCE2B55F2A3@harris.memetrics.local
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32


* various dlls (eg. cyrillic_and_mic.dll) dynamically link to externs
expected to be supplied by postgres.exe. Unless I'm waaaay off the mark
here, postmaster(.exe), acting in standalone mode, won't be able to
dynamically load these dlls.

* %e format specifier under Win32 prints 3 digits. Always. (Under *nix, I
believe it is at least 2). A bunch of tests fail solely for this reason (of
course, this is the least of our issues at this point)

* Magnus: Consider a pgwin32_signal_terminate, as exiting backends appear to
sometimes SEGV inside ConnectNamedPipe (ie. need to shutdown the signal
thread gracefully)

* SIGCHLD sending

Bruce, for this and other items on the list, can people put their hands up
to do the work and we mark it on your win32 list (so that we don't start
tripping over each others work in progress, like I/Magnus did on the signals
stuff?)

Cheers,
Claudio

---
Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics.
For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see
<a
href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em
ailpolicy.html</a>


From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "'pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Additional items for Win32 TODO list?
Date: 2004-01-28 15:11:27
Message-ID: 4017D11F.8080700@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

Claudio Natoli wrote:

>
>* %e format specifier under Win32 prints 3 digits. Always. (Under *nix, I
>believe it is at least 2). A bunch of tests fail solely for this reason (of
>course, this is the least of our issues at this point)
>

There is a long and mostly fruitless discussion of this here:

http://dbforums.com/arch/88/2003/6/801488

It appears the M$ is within the letter of the law for C89 but not for C99.

The only way I can think of to get around it would be to code our own :-(

cheers

andrew