On 6 Sep. 2016 15:12, "Michael Paquier" <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Christian Ullrich <chris@chrullrich.net> wrote:
>
> > That said, introducing this requirement would be a very significant change.
> > I'm not sure how many independently maintained compiled extensions there
> > are, but this would mean that their developers would have to have the
> > matching VS versions for every PG distribution they want to support. Even if
> > that's just EDB, it still is a lot of effort.
>
> Yes. FWIW in my stuff everything gets compiled based on the same VS
> version and bundled in the same msi, including a set of extensions
> compiled from source, but perhaps my sight is too narrow in this
> area... Well let's forget about that.
3rd party extensions may not and may not be able to. Most obvious example is people building things with mingw.
This is just expected to work on win32. Breaking this assumption will cause pain. Requiring a single unified C runtime across the process isn't viable. It isn't like Unix. You might have a legacy DLL compiled with Borland C that you're wrapping up to expose as an extension using mingw to link into a Pg compiled with MSVC.