03.06.2025 07:51, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 08:52:00AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 05:44:12AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Summary:
>>> 1. require VS 2019
>>> 2. use C11
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> +1
>
> +1 to move on for both of these. I got convinced about the benefits
> of C11 and the simplifications we could get from it in the Postgres
> code base during your presentation at pgconf.dev.
>
> Dropping VS 2015 and going up to VS 2019 brings other benefits,
> __VA_ARGS__ coming in mind. I am wondering what's the state of
> locales, actually. We've had some pain with VS 2015 as we lacked
> locale_name in _locale_t, for example. That may be worth a second
> look to see if some simplifications can happen in this area. I don't
> think so at quick glance through the VS docs, unfortunately, but I may
> be wrong, of course..
Will it mean we can implement atomics in term of C11 atomics?
Aside for VS 2019, which has no support for. (But VS 2022 already has.)
So instead of numerous variants we could just differ VS2019 vs plain C11.
--
regards
Yura Sokolov aka funny-falcon
