On Friday 28 August 2015 13:51:30 you wrote: > It's broadly interesting, but since it bakes in a build dependency on > CMake, there is some risk that the dependencies become an insurmountable > problem. > > (Does CMake run on a VAX 11/780?? :-))
http://public.kitware.com/Bug/view.php?id=13605 you about this? > > It is probably worth a try, to see what improvements arise, albeit with the > need to accept some risk of refusal of the change. > > The experiment is most likely necessary: we won't know the benefits without > trying. You right. > > If the results represent little improvement, there will be little or no > appetite to jump through the dependency hoops needed to get the change > accepted. > > On the other hand, if there are big gains, that encourages pushing thru the > dependency issues. > > On Aug 28, 2015 10:45, "YUriy Zhuravlev" <u.zhurav...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Hello Hackers > > > > How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build > > system? > > > > Old thread: > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/200812291325.13354.pete...@gmx.net > > > > The main argument against the "it's too hard". I'm right? > > > > Thanks! > > -- > > YUriy Zhuravlev > > Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com > > The Russian Postgres Company > > > > > > -- > > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > > To make changes to your subscription: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- YUriy Zhuravlev Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers