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

Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:51:14
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-01-15 20:19:54
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2010-01-15 19:48:20
Subject: Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group