Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-08-28 12:32:45 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > YUriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > Hello Hackers > > > > > > How would you react if I provided a patch which introduces a CMake build > > > system? > > > > What's your motivation for doing so? > > I definitely can see some advantages. Non-broken dependencies around > recursive make being a major one. But I'm also afraid it's a rather > large undertaking. There's a fair number of special kind of rules, and > we're probably not going to want to break pgxs for extensions. > > I also have some doubts around the portability of cmake and it's > generated makefiles. We do support some odd platforms.
If it allows us to get rid of our custom MSVC scripts, it's a huge benefit, for sure -- that has been a huge pain in the neck since day one. Like you, I am also afraid it's a huge undertaking, but if Uri wants to tackle it, we have that part covered. Experimentation until we get it all correct is going to waste some of everybody's time, too, I'm sure. I wonder about two other things: one is speed of the build (not that currently it's all that great, given all the mess with recursive make invocations, but perhaps it can be even worse); the other is how ugly the generated files are going to be, and are we going to carry them in our repo -- right now we only have configure, but are we going to keep extra files to cope with builds in systems that don't have cmake installed (as we cope with missing bison and flex)? I sure would oppose something that looks as ugly as Automake makefiles. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
