On 2017-04-07 13:07:59 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Still, it's not very clear why we need to cater for building just libpq
> > rather than the whole distribution, and a user of win32.mak presumably
> > has the option to do the latter. The core argument for bcc32.mak,
> > I think, is that we never did support building the server with Borland C
> > ... but there's no evidence that people are still building libpq with it
> > either.
>
> Indeed. Those recent reports indicate that removing win32.c would be a
> bad move.
For me they indicate the contrary, that we're currently not properly
maintaining it so that longstanding errors crop up.