Re: Win32 port

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