From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Windows support - PostgreSQL 8.0 and 8.1 |
Date: | 2007-04-27 14:28:26 |
Message-ID: | 14499.1177684106@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I think these two justify declaring the Windows port at EOL prior to
> 8.2. The others probably not so much. (Who cares if pg_regress is not a
> C program? Who besides developers uses it?)
The reason to care about it is that the lack of it guarantees the port
will be poorly tested.
> I hope this will be a one-off exercise, though.
Certainly. We knew going into it that the Windows port would have
teething pains, and so it did. The 8.0 release was effectively a beta
as far as native Windows was concerned (and was stated to be such).
Dropping 8.1 is a bit more debatable ... but ultimately it comes down
to who is willing to do back-porting effort for Windows-specific bug
fixes, given that the code base has changed so much. The core team have
agreed that *we* are not going to do that. If someone else wants to
step up, they're welcome to do so.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-04-27 14:30:49 | Re: New version of GENERATED/IDENTITY, was Re: parser dilemma |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-04-27 14:18:47 | Re: Feature freeze progress report |