Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2010/1/15 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> Do people still use MinGW for any real work? Could we just drop
>>> walreceiver support from MinGW builds?
>>> Or maybe we should consider splitting walreceiver into two parts after
>>> all. Only the bare minimum that needs to access libpq would go into the
>>> shared object, and the rest would be linked with the backend as usual.
>> I use MinGW when doing Windows work (e.g. the threading piece in parallel pg_restore). And I think it is generally desirable to be able to build on Windows using an open source tool chain. I'd want a damn good reason to abandon its use. And I don't like the idea of not supporting walreceiver on it either. Please find another solution if possible.
> Yeah. FWIW, I don't use mingw do do any windows development, but
> definitely +1 on working hard to keep support for it if at all
Ok. I'll look at splitting walreceiver code between the shared module
and backend binary slightly differently. At first glance, it doesn't
seem that hard after all, and will make the code more modular anyway.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-01-15 20:25:08|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |
|Previous:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-01-15 19:51:14|
|Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O|