On Feb 14, 2017 18:26, "David E. Wheeler" <da...@justatheory.com> wrote:

On Feb 14, 2017, at 5:37 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote:

>> Until pgxn has a way of helping users on for example Windows (or other
>> platforms where they don't have a pgxs system and a compiler around),
>> it's always going to be a "second class citizen".
> I view that as more of a failing of pgxs than pgxn. Granted, the most
common (only?) pgxn client right now is written in python, but it's
certainly possible to run that on windows with some effort (BigSQL does
it), and I'm fairly certain it's not that hard to package a python script
as a windows .exe.

Yeah, that’s outside of PGXN’s mandate. It doesn’t do any installing at
all, just distribution (release, search, download). Even the Python client
just looks to see what build support is in a distribution it downloads to
decide how to build it (make, configure, etc.), IIRC.

It's a failing in one of the two at least. It either needs to be easier to
build the things on windows, or pgxn would need to learn to do binary

Even if we get the building easier on windows, it'll likely remain a second
class citizen (though better than today's third class), given the amount of
windows machines that actually have a compiler on them for start. Pgxs in
Windows would be a big improvement, but it won't solve the problem.


Reply via email to