X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23FD29DC839 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:09:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 46581-10 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:09:39 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF34A9DC831 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:09:38 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k1BG9Yhr008129; Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:09:34 -0500 (EST) To: Mark Kirkwood cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] What do the Windows pg hackers out there like for dev In-reply-to: <43ED4488.80207@paradise.net.nz> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060210141522.035d4940@earthlink.net> <43ED4488.80207@paradise.net.nz> Comments: In-reply-to Mark Kirkwood message dated "Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:57:28 +1300" Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:09:34 -0500 Message-ID: <8128.1139674174@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.109 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109] X-Spam-Score: 0.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/438 X-Sequence-Number: 79576 Mark Kirkwood writes: > I was doing exactly this about a year ago and used Mingw. The only > annoyance was that I could compile everything on Linux in about 3 > minutes (P4 2.8Ghz), but had to wait about 60-90 minutes for the same > thing on Windows 2003 Server! (also a P4 2.8Ghz...). So I used to build > a 'go for coffee' task into the build and test cycle. Youch! That seems unbelievably bad, even for Microsloth. Did you ever identify what was the bottleneck? regards, tom lane