Re: Is there a way to build PostgreSQL client libraries with MinGW
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Is there a way to build PostgreSQL client libraries with MinGW |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D39A53E.2040005@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Is there a way to build PostgreSQL client libraries with MinGW (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Is there a way to build PostgreSQL client libraries
with MinGW
(Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>)
答复: [HACKERS] Is there a way to build PostgreSQL client libraries with MinGW ("XiaoboGu" <guxiaobo1982@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
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. > >> 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. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: