Re: Win32 port

pgman wrote:
> I have copies of Peer Direct's (Jan's company) port of PostgreSQL to
> Win32, and SRA's port to Win32, and permission to generate a merged
> patch that can be applied to 7.4.
>
> Now that 7.3 is almost complete, I am going to start work on that. I
> will post patches that deal with specific portability issues, like
> fork/exec and path separator handling, and once reviewed, apply them to
> the main CVS tree for 7.4.

I have talked to Jan, and PeerDirect wants to submit a complete working
Win32 patch, rather than the piece-by-piece merged patch I was working
on. They also have a newer version than the one they shared with me.
They realize that their patch is very unlikely to be accepted in whole,
but rather merged in and reworked to fit into our code cleanly. They
also realize 7.4 will be a moving target as people make changes to CVS.

Part of my goal was to get this in quickly while CVS was relatively
stable, particularly hitting the portability issues that are spread
throughout the code, and dealing with sticky issues like rename().

I believe they are in their right to determine how the patch is released
to the community, so it seems we either have to wait for them to
complete their mega-patch, which could take one month or more, or start
working on a patch ourselves.

Let me map out the calendar. I think we are very close on the
point-in-time recovery patch. I am hoping to get that in during
November, and I _was_ hoping for the Win32 port too, so we could have
another two months of development, then start beta for 7.4. As it
stands now, we could be adding Win32 at the end of December, pushing
back 7.4.

Comments?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 08:20:16PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Let me map out the calendar. I think we are very close on the
> point-in-time recovery patch. I am hoping to get that in during
> November, and I _was_ hoping for the Win32 port too, so we could have
> another two months of development, then start beta for 7.4. As it
> stands now, we could be adding Win32 at the end of December, pushing
> back 7.4.

What about patches that are in the pgpatches2 list? Are you going to
merge that right now, or wait for each item to be reviewed?

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"Pido que me den el Nobel por razones humanitarias" (Nicanor Parra)

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 08:20:16PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Let me map out the calendar. I think we are very close on the
> > point-in-time recovery patch. I am hoping to get that in during
> > November, and I _was_ hoping for the Win32 port too, so we could have
> > another two months of development, then start beta for 7.4. As it
> > stands now, we could be adding Win32 at the end of December, pushing
> > back 7.4.
>
> What about patches that are in the pgpatches2 list? Are you going to
> merge that right now, or wait for each item to be reviewed?

Good question. Let's say I will apply them in two days unless someone
objects to them. They all look pretty safe to me.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I have talked to Jan, and PeerDirect wants to submit a complete working
> Win32 patch, rather than the piece-by-piece merged patch I was working
> on.

Is there a reason you're doing the actual merging with CVS? ISTM it
might be more straight-forward to just wait for PeerDirect to get
their code in a state that can be committed straight to CVS, using the
normal code review process. That would leave the ball in PeerDirect's
code, as far as staying current with any changes made to CVS in the
interim.

BTW, what about the SRA stuff? i.e. could we begin work on a native
Win32 port using their work, while at the same time waiting for
PeerDirect?

> Let me map out the calendar. I think we are very close on the
> point-in-time recovery patch. I am hoping to get that in during
> November, and I _was_ hoping for the Win32 port too, so we could have
> another two months of development, then start beta for 7.4. As it
> stands now, we could be adding Win32 at the end of December, pushing
> back 7.4.

You've mentioned the "quickly release 7.4" plan before, but I'm not
sure I agree with the reasoning behind it.

PITR and Win32, while certainly important features, are not critical
enough that they justify an entire release for themselves, IMHO. Plus,
there's a definate downside to releasing quickly: users will still
need to 'initdb' between major releases, no matter how quickly they
are put out. It's also possible that a faster release cycle would mean
a more rushed, less stable development process (and therefore more
bugs).

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I have talked to Jan, and PeerDirect wants to submit a complete working
> > Win32 patch, rather than the piece-by-piece merged patch I was working
> > on.
>
> Is there a reason you're doing the actual merging with CVS? ISTM it
> might be more straight-forward to just wait for PeerDirect to get
> their code in a state that can be committed straight to CVS, using the
> normal code review process. That would leave the ball in PeerDirect's
> code, as far as staying current with any changes made to CVS in the
> interim.

Clearly, it is better if Jan/PeerDirect does the job. The question is
when it will happen. I figured if I got it started, they could then get
involved when they have time.

I recommend the port be submitted in pieces, meaning make one patch
dealing with path names, another for initdb, etc.

However, they want to do the work, and hopefully it will be done in a
reasonable time, so I certainly can wait.

> BTW, what about the SRA stuff? i.e. could we begin work on a native
> Win32 port using their work, while at the same time waiting for
> PeerDirect?

Yes, certainly I can. The problem there is that once I attack various
areas, Jan's work becomes harder because he has to take his version and
merge in into my changes.

> > Let me map out the calendar. I think we are very close on the
> > point-in-time recovery patch. I am hoping to get that in during
> > November, and I _was_ hoping for the Win32 port too, so we could have
> > another two months of development, then start beta for 7.4. As it
> > stands now, we could be adding Win32 at the end of December, pushing
> > back 7.4.
>
> You've mentioned the "quickly release 7.4" plan before, but I'm not
> sure I agree with the reasoning behind it.
>
> PITR and Win32, while certainly important features, are not critical
> enough that they justify an entire release for themselves, IMHO. Plus,
> there's a definate downside to releasing quickly: users will still
> need to 'initdb' between major releases, no matter how quickly they
> are put out. It's also possible that a faster release cycle would mean
> a more rushed, less stable development process (and therefore more
> bugs).

I have thrown out the idea and some felt that if we could get PITR and
Win32, that would be enough for a release, even if we could get it done
in a month or two.

However, I see your point that releasing too often causes too many
initdb's.

What do others want, a regular 4-6 month cycle or a shorter one?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
<snip>
> What do others want, a regular 4-6 month cycle or a shorter one?

Whilst having a regular 4-6 month cycle (er... when was the last time
THAT happened?) is alright, we should get the *Windows* native version
out to the world ASAP. This (and secondly PITR) will greatly enhance
the number of users we have.

It's important to do this because companies and governments are looking
to Open Source software in serious ways *now* so we need to be in place
to meet that need as it starts to kick in.

:)

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi

Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> Whilst having a regular 4-6 month cycle (er... when was the last time
> THAT happened?) is alright, we should get the *Windows* native version
> out to the world ASAP.

We don't have a Windows native version, and it sounds like it'll be
awhile before we have an offered set of patches to review. I think
making any release schedule plans on the basis of (ahem) vaporware
patches is a bit foolhardy.

The "quick 7.4" plan was based on the assumption that PITR and Windows
patches would both be available almost immediately. If that doesn't
come to pass then I see no reason not to go with a normal-length
development cycle.

regards, tom lane

Hello Bruce,

Thursday, November 7, 2002, 12:56:57 AM, you wrote:

BM> I have thrown out the idea and some felt that if we could get PITR and
BM> Win32, that would be enough for a release, even if we could get it done
BM> in a month or two.

BM> However, I see your point that releasing too often causes too many
BM> initdb's.

BM> What do others want, a regular 4-6 month cycle or a shorter one?
The initdb will be needed, no matter the release time is a month or
six, right ? There is no point in holding technology that is ready.
Those who don't need the release, can wait for the next one and avoid
the initdb.

Also, as a snapshot, the Win32 version won't get properly tested as it
would be as a regular release, specially because most of the
developers here work on UNIX. The best field testing would be
deploying a regular release to the hundreds of Win32 users that wait
for years for the Win32 version...

... just my thoughts, of course.

-------------
Best regards,
Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org

Hi, all.

I just wanted to give you an update on where my company (PeerDirect) is with
regards to our native Windows port.

We are planning on contributing the code for the native port sometime next
month (in December). We would have liked to contribute it earlier, but our
work schedules here didn't allow it.

The state of the port is that it passes all postgres regression tests. It's
been in BETA since early August with about 27 beta customers. The beta
customers came from a post made to the cygwin mailing list
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cygwin/2002-08/msg00012.php). The
BETA has proven successful and several problems were found and fixed.

At this point you are welcome to run the latest version of this BETA. There
is no installer, but there is a setenv.bat script to help setup the
environment. The beta can be downloaded at:
ftp://209.61.187.152/postgres/postgres_beta4.zip

This version has its own catalog version which is slightly different than
7.2.1, so you'll need to do a pg_dump and pg_restore. If you find any
issues, please don't mail me directly. Instead, please send emails to
postgres-beta(at)peerdirect(dot)com(dot) Several people monitor this address and the
issue will get resolved more quickly.

There is still some cleanup work to do, such as migrating from 7.2.1 to 7.4,
but my company is committed to contributing this port to the community by
the end of the year.

Regards,

Katie Ward
Principal Engineer
kward(at)peerdirect(dot)com

Hi, all.

I just wanted to give you an update on where my company (PeerDirect) is with
regards to our native Windows port.

We are planning on contributing the code for the native port sometime next
month (in December). We would have liked to contribute it earlier, but our
work schedules here didn't allow it.

The state of the port is that it passes all postgres regression tests. It's
been in BETA since early August with about 27 beta customers. The beta
customers came from a post made to the cygwin mailing list
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cygwin/2002-08/msg00012.php). The
BETA has proven successful and several problems were found and fixed.

At this point you are welcome to run the latest version of this BETA. There
is no installer, but there is a setenv.bat script to help setup the
environment. The beta can be downloaded at:
ftp://209.61.187.152/postgres/postgres_beta4.zip

This version has its own catalog version which is slightly different than
7.2.1, so you'll need to do a pg_dump and pg_restore. If you find any
issues, please don't mail me directly. Instead, please send emails to
postgres-beta(at)peerdirect(dot)com(dot) Several people monitor this address and the
issue will get resolved more quickly.

There is still some cleanup work to do, such as migrating from 7.2.1 to 7.4,
but my company is committed to contributing this port to the community by
the end of the year.

Regards,

Katie Ward
Principal Engineer
kward(at)peerdirect(dot)com

OK, Steve's vote is enough to indicate that most want to wait for
PeerDirect's version before moving forward with the Win32 port.

This also confirms that this will _not_ be an abreviated release cycle
but a full 4-6 months of development, followed by 2 months of beta.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Howe wrote:
> Hello Katie,
>
> Thursday, November 7, 2002, 7:08:20 PM, you wrote:
>
> KW> Hi, all.
>
> KW> I just wanted to give you an update on where my company (PeerDirect) is with
> KW> regards to our native Windows port.
>
> KW> We are planning on contributing the code for the native port sometime next
> KW> month (in December). We would have liked to contribute it earlier, but our
> KW> work schedules here didn't allow it.
>
> KW> The state of the port is that it passes all postgres regression tests. It's
> KW> been in BETA since early August with about 27 beta customers. The beta
> KW> customers came from a post made to the cygwin mailing list
> KW> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cygwin/2002-08/msg00012.php). The
> KW> BETA has proven successful and several problems were found and fixed.
>
> KW> At this point you are welcome to run the latest version of this BETA. There
> KW> is no installer, but there is a setenv.bat script to help setup the
> KW> environment. The beta can be downloaded at:
> KW> ftp://209.61.187.152/postgres/postgres_beta4.zip
>
> KW> This version has its own catalog version which is slightly different than
> KW> 7.2.1, so you'll need to do a pg_dump and pg_restore. If you find any
> KW> issues, please don't mail me directly. Instead, please send emails to
> KW> postgres-beta(at)peerdirect(dot)com(dot) Several people monitor this address and the
> KW> issue will get resolved more quickly.
>
> KW> There is still some cleanup work to do, such as migrating from 7.2.1 to 7.4,
> KW> but my company is committed to contributing this port to the community by
> KW> the end of the year.
> I have tried this version and it seems to work well on preliminary
> tests. Bruce, this probably is a good start for the port and I wonder
> if it worths having all that patching trouble you mentioned, specially
> when they offered to do it... I think you probably have a lot of work
> to do on other areas too...
>
> To Katie: does it compile with Mingw too ?
>
> -------------
> Best regards,
> Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Hello Katie,

Thursday, November 7, 2002, 7:08:20 PM, you wrote:

KW> Hi, all.

KW> I just wanted to give you an update on where my company (PeerDirect) is with
KW> regards to our native Windows port.

KW> We are planning on contributing the code for the native port sometime next
KW> month (in December). We would have liked to contribute it earlier, but our
KW> work schedules here didn't allow it.

KW> The state of the port is that it passes all postgres regression tests. It's
KW> been in BETA since early August with about 27 beta customers. The beta
KW> customers came from a post made to the cygwin mailing list
KW> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cygwin/2002-08/msg00012.php). The
KW> BETA has proven successful and several problems were found and fixed.

KW> At this point you are welcome to run the latest version of this BETA. There
KW> is no installer, but there is a setenv.bat script to help setup the
KW> environment. The beta can be downloaded at:
KW> ftp://209.61.187.152/postgres/postgres_beta4.zip

KW> This version has its own catalog version which is slightly different than
KW> 7.2.1, so you'll need to do a pg_dump and pg_restore. If you find any
KW> issues, please don't mail me directly. Instead, please send emails to
KW> postgres-beta(at)peerdirect(dot)com(dot) Several people monitor this address and the
KW> issue will get resolved more quickly.

KW> There is still some cleanup work to do, such as migrating from 7.2.1 to 7.4,
KW> but my company is committed to contributing this port to the community by
KW> the end of the year.
I have tried this version and it seems to work well on preliminary
tests. Bruce, this probably is a good start for the port and I wonder
if it worths having all that patching trouble you mentioned, specially
when they offered to do it... I think you probably have a lot of work
to do on other areas too...

To Katie: does it compile with Mingw too ?

-------------
Best regards,
Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org

I don't know if our code compiles with Mingw. I've never tried it.

Right now, all files are built with MS VC++ 6.0 because that's the
environment that I'm used to, so it's where I can code/debug the fastest.

Katie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Steve Howe
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:43 AM
> To: Katie Ward
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Win32 port
>
>
> Hello Katie,
>
> Thursday, November 7, 2002, 7:08:20 PM, you wrote:
>
> I have tried this version and it seems to work well on preliminary
> tests. Bruce, this probably is a good start for the port and I wonder
> if it worths having all that patching trouble you mentioned, specially
> when they offered to do it... I think you probably have a lot of work
> to do on other areas too...
>
> To Katie: does it compile with Mingw too ?
>
> -------------
> Best regards,
> Steve Howe mailto:howe(at)carcass(dot)dhs(dot)org
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Bruce Momjian writes:

> OK, Steve's vote is enough to indicate that most want [something]

Amazing. How can others hope to achieve such powers?

;-)

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net