Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-04-05 Thread Merlin Moncure
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-04-04 Thread Robert Haas
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-04-01 Thread Michael Banck
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Thomas Munro
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Thomas Munro
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Michael Paquier
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Craig Ringer
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Thomas Munro
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Joe Conway
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Joe Conway
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Yury Zhuravlev
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',

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Craig Ringer
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Yury Zhuravlev
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Andres Freund
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.

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-31 Thread Andres Freund
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-30 Thread Craig Ringer
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

Re: [HACKERS] So, can we stop supporting Windows native now?

2016-03-30 Thread Michael Paquier
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