On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> The other side of that argument is that allowing a build system we haven't
> even adopted yet to dictate which platforms we can support is definitely
> letting the tail wag the dog.
>
> My gut reaction to Catalin's list is that requiring C+11 is a pretty
> darn high bar to clear for older platforms. I have a positive impression
> of python's portability, so requiring a recent python version might not
> be too awful ... but then requiring ninja pretty much tosses away the
> advantage again. So, while in principle you could probably get these
> toolchains going on an old platform, the reality is that moving to either
> will amount to "we're desupporting everything that wasn't released in
> this decade". That's a pretty big shift from the project's traditional
> mindset. It's possible that our users wouldn't care; I don't know.
> But to me it's a significant minus that we'd have to set against whatever
> pluses are claimed for a move.
Yeah, I agree. I am not deathly opposed to moving, but I'd like to be
convinced that we're going to get real advantages from such a move,
and so far I'm not. The arguments thus far advanced for moving boil
down to (1) the current system is kind of old and creaky, which is
true but which I'm not sure is by itself a compelling argument for
changing anything, and (2) it might make things easier on Windows,
which could be a sufficiently good reason but I don't think I've seen
anyone explain exactly how much easier it will make things and in what
ways.
I think it's inevitable that a move like this will create some
disruption -- developers will need to install and learn new tools,
buildfarm members will need updating, and there will be some bugs.
None of that is a blocker, but the gains need to outweigh those
disadvantages, and we can't judge whether they do without a clear
explanation of what the gains will be.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company