Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Brar Piening <brar(at)gmx(dot)de>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review of VS 2010 support patches
Date: 2011-12-04 17:44:49
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/29/2011 04:32 PM, Brar Piening wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> Some minor nitpicks:
>> Do we really need to create all those and 
>> files? They are all always included anyway. Why not 
>> just stash all the packages in and 
> We certainly don't *need* them.
> Having different files separates the tasks of generating different 
> target file formats into different source files. In my opinion this 
> makes it easier to find the code that is actually generating the files 
> that get used in a specific build environment.
> While the and files are indeed not 
> much more than stubs that could eventually be extended in future (and 
> probably never will) contains the whole code for 
> generating the new file format which would significantly bloat up the 
> code in that currently contains the common code for 
> generating the old file formats.
> Anyhow - this is just my opinion and my intention is to help improving 
> the Windows build process and not forcing my design into the project.

Well, I do also dislike the asymmetry of it. Here's what I suggest: for 
the Solution files, we'll just put the object packages in 
There really doesn't seem like any need for those to have tiny files on 
their own. For the Project files, factor out the 2005/2008 specific 
parts from into a new file, and have a new file for the 
equivalent parts of your new Then we'll add packages 
to to create objects just like I'm suggesting above for The result is then more symmetrical and we'll have three 
new files instead of seven (counting

Perhaps, too, this has all got sufficiently  complicated that adding 
some descritpion of what's going on here to README would be in order. I 
suspect some of my fellow committers tend to look at the whole thing and 
scratch their heads a bit, and that means expecting other people to make 
sense if it is probably a bit much ;-)



In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andres FreundDate: 2011-12-04 19:01:34
Subject: Re: Command Triggers
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-12-04 17:07:31
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Moving tablespaces

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group