On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 16:24, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: > > > On 01/21/2011 05:24 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> >>> That advice needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt. First, while >>> you >>> probably should not use Cygwin postgres as a production server, it is >>> still >>> the best way to run psql on Windows that I know of. And second, the stuff >> >> Yeah, I agree for psql the client tool (though it used to suck badly >> if you were in a non-english locale, but they may have fixed that). >> But not for PostgreSQL the full product. I guess we could add a >> sentence about the client side, but it needs to be clear that the >> non-sucky part only applies to the client. > > > It's not so bad it can't be used for development, and I have known people > who do that, and indeed I have deployed one very complex app developed in > just that way. > > More importantly from my POV, there is no support in the buildfarm for just > building the client side, and I have no intention of providing it. So it's > not insignificant for us to be able to continue supporting a complete build > on Cygwin, however much you dislike it.
That's certainly a reasonable argument. And I don't mind supporting a complete build env for it either - as long as *I* don't have to do it. And you seem to be doing a good job at it. >>> about not being able to generate 64-bit binaries with Mingw is no longer >>> true (that's why it's no longer called Mingw32), although it is true that >>> nobody I know has yet tried to do so. It's on my long TODO list, and well >>> worth doing. (Relying on one compiler is the techno equivalent of >>> monolingualism, which my sister's bumper sticker used to tell me is a >>> curable condition.) >> >> It's true from the perspective of *postgresql* - you can't use those >> compiler to generate 64-bit binaries of PostgreSQL. And it's referring >> to "these builds", not the compiler itself. >> >> And I'm certainly not going to stand in the way of somebody adding >> build support for it if they (you or others) want to spend time on it >> - that patch should just include an update to that documentation >> paragraph, of course. >> >> Personally, I'm going to put what time I can put into "windows build >> system updates" into making us work with VS 2010 because I find that >> more important - but that's just me personally. >> > > > VS2010 is important, no doubt. But clearly there's some demand for continued > Mingw support, hence the OP's question. > > As I've remarked before, I think we should support as many build > platforms/environments as we can. Definitely agreed - as long as it doesn't mean we have to avoid adding useful features because a specific compiler/env can't deal with it. Which we've been reasonably able to avoid so far. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
