Re: C99 compliance for src/port/snprintf.c

Hi,

On 2018-08-16 14:28:25 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 16/08/2018 01:06, Andres Freund wrote:
> > So it looks like msvc 2013 might be the relevant requirement.
>
> According to my research (completely untested in practice), you need
> 2010 for mixed code and declarations and 2013 for named initialization
> of structs.
>
> I wonder what raising the msvc requirement would imply for supporting
> older Windows versions.

One relevant tidbit is that afaict 2013 still allows *targeting* older
versions of windows, down to XP and 2003, while requiring a newer
platforms to run. See:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/productinfo/vs2013-compatibility-vs
I don't know if that's hard to do, but I strongly suspect that the
existing installers already do that (otherwise supporting newer versions
would likely require separate builds).

2013 still runs on Windows 7, should you want that:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/productinfo/vs2013-sysrequirements-vs

According to https://www.postgresql.org/download/windows/
the available binaries already effectively restrict windows support:

EDB installers, for 10, restrict to:
64 Bit Windows: 2016, 2012 R2 & R1, 2008 R2, 7, 8, 10
32 Bit Windows: 2008 R1, 7, 8, 10

BIGSQL to: Windows 10 and Windows Server 2012.

Of those 2013 only doesn't run on 2008 R1 anymore. Which still can be
targeted from the newer windows versions.


It'd be good to get confirmation that the windows binaries / installers
are indeed built on newer platforms than the oldest supported version.

Random observation: http://www.openscg.com/bigsql/postgresql/installers/
seems to indicate that packages aren't updated anymore. While it says
"(09-Aug-18)" besides the major versions, it does not actually in fact
have the last set of minor releases.  I suspect that's related to
openscg's acquisition by amazon?  Either they need to catch up, or we
need to take down the page and probably alert people about that fact.

Greetings,

Andres Freund