Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > It goes with the Win32 approach of doing as little as possible to the
> > Unix port.
>
> That's *not* the approach I want to take. What I want is a Windows port
> that adds as little #ifdef cruft to the system as possible --- that is,
> no duplicate code paths that are used for only some platforms. A port
> that uses an entire timezone library that's not used elsewhere doesn't
> fit that criterion.
>
> Besides which, as I tried to explain already, a large part of the reason
> for wanting to solve the Windows datetime problem in this particular way
> was the knowledge that we could solve a lot of existing problems on
> various Unixen by adopting the same code cross-platform.
>
> What you're wanting to do seems a lot like what would happen if I were
> to write the fsync/sync-in-bgwriter code that I plan to do next week,
> and then commit it all as #ifdef WIN32 in parallel with the existing way
> of doing things. It would be an ugly mess, and you'd quite rightly tell
> me off for it ...
The timezone library is going to break the Unix build.
The group is very quick to gruble when the Win32 does something that
makes the Unix code less pleasant. Are you telling me folks would be
complaining if I committed the timezone code and broke all the builds,
not just the Win32 one? You sure would.
I never said I wasn't going to enable it for Win32, but I am only going
to do it when the unix build is better tested, and right now it doesn't
even work on my unix machine.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
