On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:49 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/
>
> ... could be good news for us ...
This is nothing new. Windows has had a unix subsystem (Interix AKA
Windows Services for
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Josh berkus wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/
>
> ... could be good news for us ...
I read a saying someplace that if you see a news headline that ends in
a question mark, the
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 09:04:35AM +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> If we eventually get a CMake build system conversion that'll mostly go
> away too.
Well, maybe the good message about this new development is that
autotools will start working much better on Windows and could be
eventually used for
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> The huge_pages feature is fairly new, and as I recall the intention is
> that other operating systems will be supported as we get patches for it.
BTW about other operating systems:
It looks like FreeBSD is
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Thomas Munro wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> > It would also be nice to find out why we can't usefully scale shared
>> > buffers
>> > higher like we can on
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I completely agree there. I wrote some documentation on how to make project
> files to build extensions, but it'd be nice to *generate* them instead, like
> we do for in-tree builds.
Yes, I maintain some code that
On 31 March 2016 at 21:53, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> The worst thing about developing from my POV isn't something that actually
> affects core developers so much, namely the lack of a nice MSVC equivalent
> of PGXS.
>
I completely agree there. I wrote some documentation on
Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > It would also be nice to find out why we can't usefully scale shared buffers
> > higher like we can on *nix.
>
> Has anyone ever looked into whether asking for SEC_LARGE_PAGES would
> help with
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> It would also be nice to find out why we can't usefully scale shared buffers
> higher like we can on *nix.
Has anyone ever looked into whether asking for SEC_LARGE_PAGES would
help with that? I noticed that another
On 03/30/2016 09:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
>> On 31 March 2016 at 07:49, Josh berkus wrote:
>>> So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?
>
>> Why would we want to?
>
>> The cost is small.
>
> Surely you jest. Windows is the
On 03/31/2016 06:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> The worst thing about developing from my POV isn't something that
> actually affects core developers so much, namely the lack of a nice MSVC
> equivalent of PGXS.
Bingo!
+1
--
Crunchy Data - http://crunchydata.com
PostgreSQL Support for Secure
On 03/31/2016 06:38 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2016-03-31 13:30:58 +0300, Yury Zhuravlev wrote:
Craig Ringer wrote:
Yeah, you're right. He's not the only one either.
I was reacting to the original post, and TBH didn't think it through. The
commit logs suggest there's a decent amount of
On 2016-03-31 13:30:58 +0300, Yury Zhuravlev wrote:
> Craig Ringer wrote:
> >Yeah, you're right. He's not the only one either.
> >
> >I was reacting to the original post, and TBH didn't think it through. The
> >commit logs suggest there's a decent amount of work that goes in, and I'm
> >sure a lot
Craig Ringer wrote:
Yeah, you're right. He's not the only one either.
I was reacting to the original post, and TBH didn't think it
through. The commit logs suggest there's a decent amount of work
that goes in, and I'm sure a lot of it isn't visible when just
looking for 'windows', 'win32',
On 31 March 2016 at 16:20, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-03-31 09:04:35 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> > The cost is small.
>
> First off I agree we don't want to drop proper windows support.
>
> But I think "the cost is small" is a pretty bad mischaracterization. I
> don't do
Craig Ringer wrote:
If we eventually get a CMake build system conversion that'll
mostly go away too.
I'm working on it. But the build system does not solve the problem of some
hacks. We must nevertheless spend more time for Windows or at least goes to
mingw64 (like ActivePerl).
--
Yury
On 2016-03-31 00:17:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Craig Ringer writes:
> > On 31 March 2016 at 07:49, Josh berkus wrote:
> >> So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?
>
> > Why would we want to?
>
> > The cost is small.
>
> Surely you jest.
On 2016-03-31 09:04:35 +0800, Craig Ringer wrote:
> The cost is small.
First off I agree we don't want to drop proper windows support.
But I think "the cost is small" is a pretty bad mischaracterization. I
don't do windows, and yet I've spent a lot of time figuring out windows
only stuff, even
Craig Ringer writes:
> On 31 March 2016 at 07:49, Josh berkus wrote:
>> So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?
> Why would we want to?
> The cost is small.
Surely you jest. Windows is the single biggest PITA platform from a
portability
On 31 March 2016 at 07:49, Josh berkus wrote:
> So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?
Why would we want to?
The cost is small. People use it. Things like integrated SSPI
authentication only work on native.
About the only issue I think it causes is with the build
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Josh berkus wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-and-canonical-partner-to-bring-ubuntu-to-windows-10/
>
> ... could be good news for us ...
Possible. We are years ahead of that for sure. Also the outcome of the
partnership, as well
21 matches
Mail list logo