| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |
| Date: | 2010-01-15 19:48:20 |
| Message-ID: | 4B50C684.30405@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2010-01-15 19:51:14 | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |
| Previous Message | Matteo Beccati | 2010-01-15 19:38:50 | Re: mailing list archiver chewing patches |