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 problem. >> 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers