| 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: | 9837222c1001151151s2eb0fae7p7b2b3826f9506f2c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
possible.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-01-15 20:19:54 | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-01-15 19:48:20 | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |