From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>,
        Sandeep Thakkar <sandeep.thakkar@enterprisedb.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
        "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>,
        David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
Subject: Re: Windows vs C99 (was Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c)
In-reply-to: <20180824181255.wsuuw273hykwk3w4@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <303572b3-89a5-6177-d46a-e23b2b4d6caa@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <20180821232952.ixj6kgccoqcjp5gf@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CANFyU94+wn2iN_ry=2SZFzxdFP6vAHA2+K0uhyyCS4YQWyyrxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180822120211.prl6uxspai4lahfs@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20180823000905.fjthfohmczss4fiw@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20180823013134.3h4j62eeiaibpgvo@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <eedbe1a9-1d3f-e878-7695-fe9b529f3239@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20180824014434.qourppnik7bmsib6@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20180824154623.i32aryx4bzfa4gxu@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <e9fb6b45-adbe-1bb4-0456-92e656220b93@2ndQuadrant.com>
 <20180824181255.wsuuw273hykwk3w4@alap3.anarazel.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Fri, 24 Aug 2018 11:12:55 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <22940.1535135908.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 14:38:28 -0400
Message-ID: <22941.1535135908@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-08-24 14:09:09 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> However, we only support VS2017 down to 9.6 and Vs2015 down to 9.5. Perhaps
>> we should consider backpatching support for those down to 9.3.

> Hm, I have no strong objections to that.   I don't think it's strictly
> necessary, given 2013 is supported across the board, but for the non MSVC
> world, we do fix compiler issues in older branches.  There's not that
> much code for the newer versions afaict?

+1 for taking a look at how big a patch it would be.  But I kind of
thought we'd intentionally rejected back-patching some of those changes
to begin with, so I'm not sure the end decision will change.

			regards, tom lane