Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:07 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>> Building them is no problem - authors can easily use EC2 for which we
>> have an AMI pre-configured for next to no cost, can build on their own
>> platform, on a community provided system, or get a friend to do it.
>
> So any module author, in order to submit any module, would be required
> to build binaries for 8-12 platforms covering up to 5 PostgreSQL
> versions (i.e. 30-70 different binaries)?  At their own cost?  Seems
> like a good way to not get any contributions at all.

No, I'm suggesting that for the module authors that want to support
Windows, there are a variety of easy ways to get binaries built. It
shouldn't be a requirement of *them*.

> For that matter, Andrew just pointed out to me (corrected me, actually)
> on IRC that if a Windows user has MSVC or Mingw installed, it should be
> no problem supporting them.

If it were likely that Windows users would have a suitable compiler
installed, I wouldn't be complaining.

> So what you're asking has nothing to do with Windows users, but is a
> more general "we want support for users who don't have a compiler
> installed".  That's a different problem -- and one which the One-click
> installer or Stackbuilder should probably solve rather than PGAN.

It already does - on Windows, Linux and Mac. I don't need this
feature, and nor do the users of my distributions. I just thought I
was being helpful by pointing out some problems in David's design
which I assumed was the point of the RFC.

>> No. The essence is, 'If you're going to do it in a way that will never
>> work for maybe 50% or more of PostgreSQL installations, then you have
>> fundamental design issues to overcome'.
>
> Again, that's the wrong attitude.  You're saying "If it doesn't work for
> 100% of Windows users from Day 1, it won't ever work for them."  By that
> logic, we should have held back version 7.4 until the windows port was
> done, dammit!  And we shouldn't have released until it worked with
> Visual C++. Even if it meant releasing in 2007.   And we shouldn't have
> released PITR until it supported HS.  And we shouldn't be releasing 8.5
> without Win64 support.

Please re-read what I said before churning out ridiculous arguments
that in no way relate to what I wrote.

I am saying that if the design won't ever work without requiring
painful dependency installation that users will likely not want to
bother with, then it is fundamentally broken. Better to write one
system that can _eventually_ work everywhere, than one that works for
some, and then another that works elsewhere.

> This list *also* has a real tendency to have an incredible negative
> attitude, which *you* are currently expressing.  The constructive way
> for you to approach this would have been to say "I think that the
> general idea has merit, but that putting off Windows support is a
> mistake.  What about supporting binary distribution at the outset?

Again, please read what I wrote. That is almost exactly what I did
write. I said it was a good idea, I explained why I thought ignoring
Windows was an issue, and I noted that we had previously discussed
binary distribution.

> coding the client in C?"  Instead, you said "this doesn't solve problems
> A, B, and C, so it's stupid."

No - I said it won't work for most windows users, use C instead as
that'll work everywhere. At no point did I say or imply it was
"stupid", just that it wasn't a universal solution.

> Building a simple solution which doesn't initially cover all bases but
> can be steadily improved is a far superior strategy to trying to spec
> The Perfect Solution before even starting work.  And if we want to keep
> recruiting new contributors, criticism needs to be more constructive.

For every criticism I made, I gave my reasoning, and offered a
solution or an idea that would resolve my concern. In what bloody way
is that not constructive?

Remember, David posted an RFC. I'm not going to fill this list with
grovelling bullshit about how every line he wrote is genius. I
commented on the parts I considered a problem, and gave an overall nod
to the rest. If all you want on this list is positive comments, then I
won't bother any more as that won't help anyone.

/D