On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 23:06, Brar Piening <b...@gmx.de> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 21:26:22 +0100, Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: >> >> it's not something we should hold up the CF / release for. > > I agree. > At least it should get some more testing besides mine. > > I've set up virtual machines with VS 2003, VS 2005 Express, VS 2008 Express > (+ my PC with VS 2010) for testing purposes but I didn't test all possible > build paths with respect to the external libraries to include.
Yeah, the external libraries are really the biggest thing. > While I didn't change much of the existing VS 2005/8 code I currently can't > guarantee that the VS 2010 build will work for every possible external > library one could include (yet I didn't stumble into any failure while > testing) and still I could have broken some VS 2005/8 build path too. > The patch could also be extended to automatically support building libpq > when VS 2003 is detected or support other desireable features that aren't > really in the context of supporting VS 2010. > > Being somewhat short of time in the next weeks I'm at least willing to > rebase the patch on request and do some more testing or fix issues someone > else has detected before the next release (9.2?) goes beta. Sounds good. > If there's some pressure to support VS 2010 asap - please let me know and > I'll see what I can do. I don't think there is, really. It's a "nice to have", but if it comes in 9.2 instead of 9.1, I don't think that's a problem. 99.9% of all Win32 users don't build from source in the first place, and I'm sure Dave is happy not to have to dela with another version ;) -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
