Re: Win32 port - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I have talked to Jan, and PeerDirect wants to submit a complete working
> > Win32 patch, rather than the piece-by-piece merged patch I was working
> > on.
> 
> Is there a reason you're doing the actual merging with CVS? ISTM it
> might be more straight-forward to just wait for PeerDirect to get
> their code in a state that can be committed straight to CVS, using the
> normal code review process. That would leave the ball in PeerDirect's
> code, as far as staying current with any changes made to CVS in the
> interim.

Clearly, it is better if Jan/PeerDirect does the job.  The question is
when it will happen.  I figured if I got it started, they could then get
involved when they have time.

I recommend the port be submitted in pieces, meaning make one patch
dealing with path names, another for initdb, etc.

However, they want to do the work, and hopefully it will be done in a
reasonable time, so I certainly can wait.


> BTW, what about the SRA stuff? i.e. could we begin work on a native
> Win32 port using their work, while at the same time waiting for
> PeerDirect?

Yes, certainly I can.  The problem there is that once I attack various
areas, Jan's work becomes harder because he has to take his version and
merge in into my changes.

> > Let me map out the calendar.  I think we are very close on the
> > point-in-time recovery patch.  I am hoping to get that in during
> > November, and I _was_ hoping for the Win32 port too, so we could have
> > another two months of development, then start beta for 7.4.  As it
> > stands now, we could be adding Win32 at the end of December, pushing
> > back 7.4.
> 
> You've mentioned the "quickly release 7.4" plan before, but I'm not
> sure I agree with the reasoning behind it.
> 
> PITR and Win32, while certainly important features, are not critical
> enough that they justify an entire release for themselves, IMHO. Plus,
> there's a definate downside to releasing quickly: users will still
> need to 'initdb' between major releases, no matter how quickly they
> are put out. It's also possible that a faster release cycle would mean
> a more rushed, less stable development process (and therefore more
> bugs).

I have thrown out the idea and some felt that if we could get PITR and
Win32, that would be enough for a release, even if we could get it done
in a month or two.

However, I see your point that releasing too often causes too many
initdb's.

What do others want, a regular 4-6 month cycle or a shorter one?

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073