Thread: What do the Windows pg hackers out there like for dev tools?
Subject line says it all. I'm going to be testing changes under both Linux and WinXP, so I'm hoping those of you that do M$ hacking will pass along your list of suggestions and/or favorite (and hated so I know what to avoid) tools. TiA, Ron
On 2/10/06, Ron <rjpeace@earthlink.net> wrote: > Subject line says it all. I'm going to be testing changes under both > Linux and WinXP, so I'm hoping those of you that do M$ hacking will > pass along your list of suggestions and/or favorite (and hated so I > know what to avoid) tools. If you mean hacking postgresql source code, you pretty much have to use the built in make/build system...this more or less rules out IDEs and such. I like UltraEdit for a text editor. Another good choice for editor is source insight. Winmerge is a fantastic tool and you may want to check out wincvs/tortoisesvn if you want to do checkouts from the gui. Of course, to make/build postgresql in windows, you can go with cygwin or mingw. cygwin is a bit easier to set up and has a more of a unix flavor but mignw allows you to compile native executables. The upcoming windows vista will most likely be able to compile postgresql without an external build system. Merlin
Ron wrote: > Subject line says it all. I'm going to be testing changes under both > Linux and WinXP, so I'm hoping those of you that do M$ hacking will pass > along your list of suggestions and/or favorite (and hated so I know what > to avoid) tools. > Testing only? So you really only need to build and run on Windows... I was doing exactly this about a year ago and used Mingw. The only annoyance was that I could compile everything on Linux in about 3 minutes (P4 2.8Ghz), but had to wait about 60-90 minutes for the same thing on Windows 2003 Server! (also a P4 2.8Ghz...). So I used to build a 'go for coffee' task into the build and test cycle. Cheers Mark
Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> writes:
> I was doing exactly this about a year ago and used Mingw. The only
> annoyance was that I could compile everything on Linux in about 3
> minutes (P4 2.8Ghz), but had to wait about 60-90 minutes for the same
> thing on Windows 2003 Server! (also a P4 2.8Ghz...). So I used to build
> a 'go for coffee' task into the build and test cycle.
Youch! That seems unbelievably bad, even for Microsloth. Did you ever
identify what was the bottleneck?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> writes: > >>I was doing exactly this about a year ago and used Mingw. The only >>annoyance was that I could compile everything on Linux in about 3 >>minutes (P4 2.8Ghz), but had to wait about 60-90 minutes for the same >>thing on Windows 2003 Server! (also a P4 2.8Ghz...). So I used to build >>a 'go for coffee' task into the build and test cycle. > > > Youch! That seems unbelievably bad, even for Microsloth. Did you ever > identify what was the bottleneck? > No - I was connecting using an RDB client from a Linux box (over a LAN), so was never sure how much that was hurting things... but (as noted by Magnus) the compiler itself is noticeablely slower (easily observed during the 'configure' step). cheers Mark