Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1epfO0-0005hy-Bh for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:21:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1epfNy-0006ec-Hl for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:21:30 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1epfNy-0006eT-C4 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:21:30 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1epfNv-0006Pm-NL; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:21:29 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id w1OJLNov016786; Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:21:23 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Andrew Gierth cc: Michael Meskes , jallen@americansavingslife.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #15080: ecpg on windows doesn't define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT In-reply-to: <877er2nr8c.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk> References: <151935568942.1461.14623890240535309745@wrigleys.postgresql.org> <1519483386.2654.291.camel@postgresql.org> <877er2nr8c.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk> Comments: In-reply-to Andrew Gierth message dated "Sat, 24 Feb 2018 19:09:15 +0000" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <16784.1519500083.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 14:21:23 -0500 Message-ID: <16785.1519500083@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andrew Gierth writes: > Solution.pm has this: > #if (_MSC_VER > 1200) > #define HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT_64 1 > #define ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY 1 > #endif > from which HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT seems to be suspiciously missing? I remember noticing that discrepancy recently when I was chasing something else about int64 support. It certainly looks wrong, but not being much of an ecpg user I was hesitant to touch it. regards, tom lane