Re: Support for QNX6, POSIX IPC and PTHREAD-style locking

"Igor Kovalenko" <Igor(dot)Kovalenko(at)motorola(dot)com> writes:
>> No, the point is that the Posix semaphore stuff is a major change to a
>> critical and delicate part of Postgres. It's too late in the 7.2 beta
>> cycle for such a change to receive the review and testing it needs.

> I have feeling we're talking different languages. Can someone explain me how
> does it need lot of review and testing if all changes are #ifdef-ed and
> invisible to all currently supported platforms?

It needs review and testing because we're not convinced that it's right.
We're not interested in shipping a possibly-unreliable QNX6 port just to
have a QNX6 port.

Also, patches that introduce a bunch of #ifdefs into what had been
non-system-specific code are disliked on general principles around this
project: they make the code harder to read and less maintainable over
the long run. In that sense the patch is going in the wrong direction.
There needs to be some work done on restructuring the existing code to
preserve readability.

I do believe that it's a good idea to support Posix semaphores; that's
been in the wind for awhile, and it's clear that QNX6 is not the only
platform that would benefit. We will take up this code, in some form,
in 7.3. But I don't think it's a wise idea to cram it into 7.2.
7.2 is already two months behind schedule, and I don't want to risk
any more delays in this release cycle.

> ... What I get for that is people refusing to
> accept the patch without even reading it. That's really encouraging ...

I *have* read it. More than once. I'm not saying you've done bad work.
It's a great starting point, in fact. But I don't want to apply it
as-is, and I don't want to hold up 7.2 anymore in order to get QNX6
support into 7.2.

regards, tom lane