Thread: Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> Port lib. Regardless where it comes from, the porting code should be a
> self contained library, not a list of objects. On Windows, a .DLL can
> do some things easier than an application. Also, having a library
> allows more flexibility as to how a port is designed.
That may be necessary on Windoze, but on any other platform breaking out
an essential part of the backend as a library strikes me as a dead loss.
You create extra risk of installation mistakes, can't-find-library
startup failures, version mismatch problems, etc, etc --- for zero gain
that I can see.
For comparison you may want to observe the opinion expressed some time
ago by Peter E. that we should fold plpgsql and the other PL's into
the backend, instead of having them as dynamic-linked libraries.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > > mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes: > > Port lib. Regardless where it comes from, the porting code should be a > > self contained library, not a list of objects. On Windows, a .DLL can > > do some things easier than an application. Also, having a library > > allows more flexibility as to how a port is designed. > > That may be necessary on Windoze, but on any other platform breaking out > an essential part of the backend as a library strikes me as a dead loss. > You create extra risk of installation mistakes, can't-find-library > startup failures, version mismatch problems, etc, etc --- for zero gain > that I can see. It does not need, and probably should not be by default, a shared library under UNIX. A static library is fine. The issue is whether or not it makes sense to try and design all porting layers the same, or allow the port engineer the flexibility to create what they need the way they need to do it. A side note: The "Windoze" comment says a lot Tom. Believe me, I am currently no fan of Windows, but there is something to be said about doing a good job supporting such a popular platform, regardless of our personal opinions. When I was working at DMN, I had to make sure we could find country music and Brittany Spears. Distasteful, but certainly something that needed to be done. IMHO, I think a great PostgreSQL implementation for Win32 is a nail in the coffin for Windows. If we give them a great database, which runs well under Windows, for free, MSSQL will now have a serious competitor for the medium to small marketplace. Once MSSQL has viable cross-platform competition in this space, one less requirement for Windows will exist. Right now, if you implement on Windows, you are most likely going to use MSSQL and be stuck there. With a good Win32 PostgreSQL, an engineer can implement on PostgreSQL for Windows, and easily move it to a "real" environment for stability. I see it as an important step.
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of mlw > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:16 AM > To: Tom Lane > Cc: PostgreSQL-development; Jan Wieck; Marc G. Fournier; Dann Corbit > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy > > IMHO, I think a great PostgreSQL implementation for Win32 is a nail in the > coffin for Windows. If we give them a great database, which runs > well under > Windows, for free, MSSQL will now have a serious competitor for > the medium to > small marketplace. > > Once MSSQL has viable cross-platform competition in this space, one less > requirement for Windows will exist. Right now, if you implement > on Windows, you > are most likely going to use MSSQL and be stuck there. With a good Win32 > PostgreSQL, an engineer can implement on PostgreSQL for Windows, > and easily > move it to a "real" environment for stability. > > I see it as an important step. ... and for IT staff who do their play-work on the Windows laptops, and to help compete against MySQL, which has a strong, out-of-the-box Windows binary, and for people who think it's easier to install and play with things on Windows first, and ... It seems like there are lot of open paths discussions, though: . make cygwin perform better (does it perform badly? is it unstable?) . make cygwin easier to install . make windows native (req's semaphore, fork, some shell utils, etc.) I've installed PG+Cygwin on a few dozen machines, but always to let people play before the real *nix install. Can anyone speak to _really_ using PG + Cygwin? Joel BURTON | joel@joelburton.com | joelburton.com | aim: wjoelburton Knowledge Management & Technology Consultant
Joel Burton wrote: > ... and for IT staff who do their play-work on the Windows laptops, and to > help compete against MySQL, which has a strong, out-of-the-box Windows > binary, and for people who think it's easier to install and play with things > on Windows first, and ... > > It seems like there are lot of open paths discussions, though: > > . make cygwin perform better (does it perform badly? is it unstable?) I don't know if a native Win32 binary will perform better, I do know that Linux running PostgreSQL performs better than Windows running cygwin and PostgreSQL on the same machine. The extent of what that means is unclear. > > . make cygwin easier to install Or just have a stripped down cygwin runtime. > > . make windows native (req's semaphore, fork, some shell utils, etc.) Hence this whole conversation. > > I've installed PG+Cygwin on a few dozen machines, but always to let people > play before the real *nix install. Can anyone speak to _really_ using PG + > Cygwin? As I think of it, I don't think a cygwin PostgreSQL will *ever* be taken seriously by the Windows crowd, just as a Wine/CorelDraw wasn't taken seriously by the Linux crowd. If we want to support Windows, we should support Windows. Cygwin will not be accepted by any serious IT team.
> -----Original Message----- > From: markw@snoopy.mohawksoft.com [mailto:markw@snoopy.mohawksoft.com]On > Behalf Of mlw > Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:47 AM > To: Joel Burton > Cc: Tom Lane; PostgreSQL-development; Jan Wieck; Marc G. Fournier; Dann > Corbit > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy > > > As I think of it, I don't think a cygwin PostgreSQL will *ever* be taken > seriously by the Windows crowd, just as a Wine/CorelDraw wasn't > taken seriously > by the Linux crowd. > > If we want to support Windows, we should support Windows. Cygwin > will not be > accepted by any serious IT team. Well, I think it's a bit different than Wine, a _huge_ binary trying to emulate every call of an operating system (and making things more than a bit slower). If there is a stripped down, out-of-the-box install that includes cygwin, do you think that will turn people off? It would be essentially invisible. There was a native PG (7.0.3, IIRC) floating around on the web, so _someone_ has done this before. - J. Joel BURTON | joel@joelburton.com | joelburton.com | aim: wjoelburton Knowledge Management & Technology Consultant