On 04/23/2016 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>>> On 04/23/2016 05:30 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
>>>> In this case, I would prefer this:
>>>>
>>>> #ifdef WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER
>>>> -typedef int pid_t;
>>>> +typedef intptr_t pid_t;
>>>> #endif
>>> That's a change that will have a pretty wide effect. Everything up to
>>> now has been pretty low risk, but this worries me rather more. Maybe
>>> it's safe, but I'd like to hear others' comments.
>> Yeah, it makes me a bit nervous too.
> One other thought: even if this is safe for HEAD, I think we could
> *not* back-patch it into 9.5, because it would amount to an ABI
> break on Windows anywhere that pid_t is used in globally visible
> structs or function signatures. (Maybe there are no such places,
> but I doubt it.) So we'd need to go with the messy-cast solution
> for 9.5.
It's not that messy. I'm inclined just to make minimal changed to
pg_basebackup.c and be done with it. I don't think a compiler warning is
worth doing more for.
cheers
andrew