On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:07:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I think we're hoping that somebody will step up and investigate how > >> narwhal's problem might be fixed.
I have planned to look at reproducing narwhal's problem once the dust settles on orangutan, but I wouldn't mind if narwhal went away instead. > > However, if "fixing" it comes down to upgrading the seriously old > > compiler and toolchain on that box (which frankly is so obsolete, I > > can't see why anyone would want to use anything like it these days), > > then I think the best option is to retire it, and replace it with > > Windows 2012R2 and a modern release of MinGW/Msys which is far more > > likely to be similar to what someone would want to use at present. If you upgrade the toolchain, you really have a new animal. > No argument here. I would kind of like to have more than zero > understanding of *why* it's failing, just in case there's more to it > than "oh, probably a bug in this old toolchain". But finding that out > might well take significant time, and in the end not tell us anything > very useful. Agreed on all those points. > Is it likely that anyone is still using Windows 2003 in the field? > A possible compromise is to update the toolchain but stay on the > same OS release, so that we still have testing that's relevant to > people using older OS releases. Windows Server 2003 isn't even EOL yet. I'd welcome a buildfarm member with that OS and a modern toolchain. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
