| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
| Date: | 2009-01-27 15:52:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1233071530.16147.14.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 09:48 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > We don't require perl for any other feature, do we? Seems like a
> > pretty onerous requireemnt for Windows in particular. We do use perl
> > in the build scripts, but that's only required if you want to compile
> > from source.
>
> Well, from that POV the only portable thing is to translate it into C.
> That's just a whole lot more work (remember initdb?). The perl port for
> Windows is easily installable, widely used and well regarded. It doesn't
> strike me as too high a price to pay for the ability to do upgrades, but
> I'll defer to more Windows-centric commenters.
Actually as much as perl is ubiquitous it isn't. What version of perl
shall we require? Will we require other modules? Does that version work
on all our supported platforms (HPUX, NETBSD?)
Joshua D. Drake
--
PostgreSQL - XMPP: jdrake(at)jabber(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Consulting, Development, Support, Training
503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company, serving since 1997
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-01-27 15:56:33 | Re: pg_upgrade project status |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2009-01-27 15:51:30 | Re: 8.4 release planning (was Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Automatic view update rules) |