Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Wed, 30 May 2018 at 00:51, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > You are totally wrong, I didn't it, especial called somebody "old". > ​Then I apologise for misunderstanding your intention. Language/culture barrier perhaps? Geoff >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > Arguing with people and telling them that they're wrong or (as you appear > to be doing) that they're old and out of touch isn't going to make them any > more likely to want to use your code. > You are totally wrong, I didn't it, especial called somebody "old". Perhaps you think like this

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > Is it worth spending thousands of person-hours converting what we have > into something different that happens to be de rigeur, and (especially) > using up many hours of our precious core developer time while they learn > the new methods, while not actually gaining functionality? Also,

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Mon, 28 May 2018 at 03:30, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > I suppose I can make summary after reading all this: > 1. Any change in the development process will be possible if it will be > convenient for each key developers personally only. (development process > include build system) > 2. Currently,

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

First, I apologize if my words hurt someone. I didn't want this. Second, I totally agree with Andrew. > He's also right that the build system is among the > least of our problems in making newcomers feel comfortable. > This what I wanted to say. Not big technical difference between build systems

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:16:08AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: >> I would argue the exact opposite - mail is a lot more flexible than using >> github issues and that's one of the most important reasons I prefer it. >> >> (and there are of

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:16:08AM +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote: > I would argue the exact opposite - mail is a lot more flexible than using > github issues and that's one of the most important reasons I prefer it.  > > (and there are of course many ways to tag and categorize your email, many

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > It is correct that Gmail is incapable of this in the web browser. Many > other email systems can though, and Gmail still speaks imap so you can use > those if you prefer. > Mail programs outside web browser not popular anymore and this standalone programs became very slow to grow (for example

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > It's more than just a bunch of conservative dinosaurs not wanting to > change how they do anything, > I didn't talk that. It's that a change needs to offer really compelling benefits > Because of this benefits depend on your development style and your habits. For me for example, simple

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Mon, May 28, 2018, 10:03 Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > пн, 28 мая 2018 г. в 16:42, Pierre Ducroquet : > >> On Monday, May 28, 2018 4:37:06 AM CEST Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> > > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style >> > >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

пн, 28 мая 2018 г. в 16:42, Pierre Ducroquet : > On Monday, May 28, 2018 4:37:06 AM CEST Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style > > > platforms copes with reasonable complex discussions. > > > > I disagree. A good

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Monday, May 28, 2018 4:37:06 AM CEST Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style > > platforms copes with reasonable complex discussions. > > I disagree. A good example of complex discussions on github is Rust > language tracker for RFCs: >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > Can't see getting rid of those entirely. None of the github style > platforms copes with reasonable complex discussions. I disagree. A good example of complex discussions on github is Rust language tracker for RFCs: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues and one concrete example:

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

I suppose I can make summary after reading all this: 1. Any change in the development process will be possible if it will be convenient for each key developers personally only. (development process include build system) 2. Currently, almost all key developers use Unix like systems, they have

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:42:00PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > > We also have what seems like half an OS worth of tooling to support our > > shared-nothing-by-default multi-processing model. Custom spinlocks, our > > LWLocks, our latches, signal based IPC + ProcSignal signal multiplexing, > >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

2018-05-18 5:50 GMT+02:00 Craig Ringer : > On 18 May 2018 at 11:10, Andres Freund wrote: > >> >> >> On May 17, 2018 7:44:44 PM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> >On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:32:39AM +0200, Catalin Iacob wrote: >> >> I do

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 18 May 2018 at 11:10, Andres Freund wrote: > > > On May 17, 2018 7:44:44 PM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:32:39AM +0200, Catalin Iacob wrote: > >> I do have a real concern about the long term attractiveness of the > >> project

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On May 17, 2018 7:44:44 PM PDT, Bruce Momjian wrote: >On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:32:39AM +0200, Catalin Iacob wrote: >> I do have a real concern about the long term attractiveness of the >> project to new developers, especially younger ones as time passes. >> It's not a secret

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 12:32:39AM +0200, Catalin Iacob wrote: > I do have a real concern about the long term attractiveness of the > project to new developers, especially younger ones as time passes. > It's not a secret that people will just avoid creaky old projects, and > for Postgres old out

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

Hello, Yuriy. You wrote: YZ>  (2) it might make things easier on Windows, YZ> which could be a sufficiently good reason but I don't think I've seen YZ> anyone explain exactly how much easier it will make things and in what YZ> ways. YZ> 1. You can remove tools/msvc folder because all

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > Sorry, but comparing lines at that state is just bullshit. I totally disagree, proportions will be same in any case. Most of the comments of converted tests are missing. > Add 100-500 lines? ok. You detect like a third of the things that the old configure > detected. > I tried to use

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 2018-05-03 09:42:49 +0900, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > 2018-05-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund : > > Given that you don't have feature parity this just seems like trolling. > > > > I have. I have some lacks with .po generation and documentation but all! > other features same,

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

2018-05-03 9:32 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund : > On 2018-05-03 09:29:32 +0900, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > > > > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > > > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > > > you prefer. > > > > > >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 2018-05-03 09:29:32 +0900, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > > > > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > > you prefer. > > > It's not a hyperbole it's fact and I even talked about it on conference. >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > you prefer. It's not a hyperbole it's fact and I even talked about it on conference. You should just compare all my cmake files with Makefile+.in+.m4 (and

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > I don't think that unsubstantiated hyperbole is the right way to > approach the task of convincing the community to adopt the approach > you prefer. I don't see that any compelling evidence has been > presented that a

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

Andres Freund writes: > Now you could argue that we could just rewrite to non-recursive > make. But that'd be nearly as much work as migrating to another > buildsystem. I'm sure it'd be a significant amount of work ... but it wouldn't require redesigning any configuration or

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 2018-05-02 23:43:50 +0200, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > On 02.05.2018 17:44, Robert Haas wrote: > > But having parallel make work better and more efficiently > > and with fewer hard-to-diagnose failure modes would definitely be > > nice. > > that's especially a thing I haven't seen in "our"

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 02.05.2018 17:44, Robert Haas wrote: But having parallel make work better and more efficiently and with fewer hard-to-diagnose failure modes would definitely be nice. that's especially a thing I haven't seen in "our" environment, this was an area where autotools and cmake didn't really

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> That indeed would be an improvement, but maybe we could fix that specific >> pain point without having to throw away twenty years worth of work? > > Indeed! Only a few thousands of lines of code can generate the whole

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 02.05.2018 16:22, Tom Lane wrote: (-D? really?) it's worse ... "cmake -L" only produces a alphabetically sorted list of known -D settings, just listing the names without description. That's so far behind from what ./configure --help produces. (And don't get me started on cmake-gui.

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

Geoff Winkless writes: > Being blunt, unless I've missed the point all the arguments I've read so > far for cmake seem to be advantages for the developers, not the users. As > developers who put in your time you are of course entitled to make your > lives easier but I'm just

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Wed, 2 May 2018 at 00:57, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: > Hello Geoff! > > About cmake: > 1. You can still use the binary build for your system. > 2. You can still build Postgres from source and with old gcc, you need > only install cmake (it's very easy) Only most modern

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On May 1, 2018 9:26:27 PM PDT, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: >After small check I found next: >we need gcc 4.8 anyway for libjit and it means RHEL 7 and newer: >https://access.redhat.com/solutions/19458 >because 4.8 needed to build LLVM. We don't use libjit. As for the llvm stuff

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

After small check I found next: we need gcc 4.8 anyway for libjit and it means RHEL 7 and newer: https://access.redhat.com/solutions/19458 because 4.8 needed to build LLVM.

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > No tons of hacks. > And functions too https://bitbucket.org/adunstan/pg-closed-ranges/raw/0475b50ff793ce876a78c96d72903c9793a98fc1/cmake/FindPostgreSQL.cmake I mean things like HAVE_LONG_LONG_INT you can't figure out on "configure" stage without parsing config.h in CMake. Also, maybe I am

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: >> Indeed. It's possibly today to use CMake without a huge amount of > difficulty to build extensions out of tree against MSVC-built > postgres. > > > How? All builds what I saw was with tons of hacks. There is a simple

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> Indeed. It's possibly today to use CMake without a huge amount of difficulty to build extensions out of tree against MSVC-built postgres. How? All builds what I saw was with tons of hacks. On windows, Postgres can build against Mingw, many versions of MSVC and etc Also, you can build Postgres

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > That indeed would be an improvement, but maybe we could fix that specific > pain point without having to throw away twenty years worth of work? Indeed! Only a few thousands of lines of code can generate the whole you manually wrote, it's the perfect result! re-invention of portability hacks

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

Hello Geoff! About cmake: 1. You can still use the binary build for your system. 2. You can still build Postgres from source and with old gcc, you need only install cmake (it's very easy) Only most modern versions of CMake depend on modern gcc. I have good experience with old Solaris and AIX. (I

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund writes: >> On 2018-05-01 12:19:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I found your brain dump an interesting read, and I have to say that it >>> leaves me rather uninspired about making a change.

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

Andres Freund writes: > On 2018-05-01 12:19:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> I found your brain dump an interesting read, and I have to say that it >> leaves me rather uninspired about making a change. It sounds to me >> like if we change, some things will be better and others

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > How is being able to build extensions on windows reasonably not an > improvement? It's really hard to build pgxs like stuff on windows right > now. Also not having to maintain a fair amount of visual studio project >

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

I'd like to add my 2c that, as a user who has to support postgres running on some fairly old systems, changing to a modern build mechanism (with all the resultant dependency hell that it would likely introduce) would be likely to cause me much grief. At the moment I can still log in to the old RH

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 2018-05-01 12:19:28 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Hartmut Holzgraefe > wrote: > > I could probably continue with this brain dump forever, ... > > I found your brain dump an interesting read, and I have to say that it > leaves me

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Hartmut Holzgraefe wrote: > I could probably continue with this brain dump forever, ... I found your brain dump an interesting read, and I have to say that it leaves me rather uninspired about making a change. It sounds to me like

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > this is not about having a working build environment, it is about having > a fully working and correct source tarball before distributing it as a > new release. Sorry, I did not understand correctly it before. I suppose it's not big problem especial if you have CI and tests farm. And anyway

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > Which is nice > OK Again, nice > Yeah, that's nice I already use CMake I'd do it, personally > I suppose we have no one silver bullet reason to change autoconf+make to CMake but it's cumulative impression. Also, I suppose this thread started to resolve at least one small question.

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 28.04.2018 05:27, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: "make distcheck" CMake have no this bad concept, in my opinion, if you want to make the project you should have a full build environment. (but I don't want to argue about it here) this is not about having a working build environment, it is

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > Makefiles generated by automake are more feature rich in general, > which is understandable as its the only backend it has to support. The main problem here - Postrges do not use automake at all! Postgres it's autoconf + handmade GNU Make files + perl script for generating old MSVC project

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 27.04.2018 10:45, Mark Kirkwood wrote: I note that Mysql (yeah I know, we don't love 'em greatly, but their product niche is similar to ours) and Ceph (ok it is a distributed storage system but still a highly popular open src product) have switched to using cmake (relatively) recently.

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On 27/04/18 19:10, Yuriy Zhuravlev wrote: 1. You can remove tools/msvc folder because all your build rules will be universal. (cmake build now have much fewer lines of code) 2. You can forget about terminal in Windows (for windows guys it's important) 3. You can normally check environment on

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> (2) it might make things easier on Windows, > which could be a sufficiently good reason but I don't think I've seen > anyone explain exactly how much easier it will make things and in what > ways. > 1. You can remove tools/msvc folder because all your build rules will be universal. (cmake

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > The other side of that argument is that allowing a build system we haven't > even adopted yet to dictate which platforms we can support is definitely > letting the tail wag the dog. > > My gut reaction to Catalin's list is

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > My gut reaction to Catalin's list is that requiring C+11 is a pretty > darn high bar to clear for older platforms. > It's only for latest version and we can support version 3.9 with C++98 I think at least 5 years. 3.9.6 was realease in November 10, 2017 . That's a pretty big shift from the

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

> > The above is all about getting the build system to work at all. If that > isn't a showstopper there's a subsequent discussion to be had about older > platforms where one could get the build system to work but convenient > packages are missing. For example not even RHEL7 has any Python3

Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

About CMake: We can use 3.9 version very well, it has all features for us, at least for my postgres_cmake branch and I have the experience to introduce features to cmake special for postgres build. Also, cmake very easily build even for Solaris or AIX (on my webpage I have examples to build

Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms

There have been several discussions of replacing PG's autoconf + src/tools/msvc system. The last example is happening now at the bottom of the Setting rpath on llvmjit.so thread. I see potentially big advantages to moving but also to PG's conservative approach that keeps it running on edge and