From: pgsql at tomd.cc (Tom Dunstan) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:48:02 +0000 Subject: [Pljava-dev] Working on 1.4 beta release In-Reply-To: References: <47418556.2070804@tada.se> Message-ID: On Nov 19, 2007 12:45 PM, Thomas Hallgren wrote: > Kris Jurka wrote: > > 1) What server versions to support? I was thinking of building binary > > releases for 8.1 -> 8.3 for win32, linux-i386, linux-amd64, and perhaps > > solaris-i386 as those are the platforms I have access to. > > > Personally, I think this is fairly ambitious for the PL/Java project. My > take historically has been to provide win32 and linux-x86 only since I > don't see the PL/Java project as a binary distributor. Uh, if not us, then who? PL/Java is really cool technology that is something of a pain to get to the point where you can actually use it (esp on win32). Let's not compare with the built-in PLs. And yet I really don't think there's anything that really *requires* it being so fiddly. I would really like to see, ideally, PL/Java installable by yum/apt-get/pkg-get etc on unix-like systems. I think there's a bit of work to do to get there, but it's not impossible. But I'll leave discussion on that for another thread. > The permutations tend to grow and the task of maintaining all of them becomes significant. Well, there are three variables, right? Postgres version, JVM version and operating system/architecture, which I'll just call "platform". I'm pretty sure I was able to compile pljava against a 1.5 JDK and run it against a 1.6 one. So I don't think we should need to build it for more than one JVM. The architectures that Kris mentioned sound good to me, although I'd like to see Solaris/sparc in there as well if possible (although like Kris, I don't have access to a sparc machine atm), and perhaps MacOSX/x86 (since I've got a Macbook :) ). The question then becomes: which pgsql versions do we want to support? 8.1-8.3? I have a build script that can build pljava, run the test suite and spit out binaries. It works (well I've tested it) on win32, solaris/x86 and linux/x86. I'd be more than happy to build binaries for all of those postgres versions for those platforms. > A win32 binary is important because it requires a build environment that > is less then intuitive to obtain and install correctly. For most other > variants, I think a good instruction on how to build the binary is more > important. I agree that good docco on how to build the binaries is necessary, but I definitely think we should be building binaries for common platforms. > > 2) What options should the server be built with? Since pljava picks up > > these options via PGXS, the server configuration will affect the pljava > > builds. Shoule --enable-debug be used? On a related note, should we try > > to build the java code with -g if we find --enable-debug? Build java code with -g, but pljava c code without debugging symbols I reckon. If someone wants to debug pljava C code, they can build it themselves. :) > Ideally, all documentation should be kept in the CVS together with the > source at some point. The use of the wiki for documenting was more an > attempt to get collaboration going. It didn't happen. At some point I > think all docs should be moved over and the wiki should point to some > place where the doc is mirrored from the CVS but I don't think this need > to happen for the 1.4 release. I have some free time over the next few weeks, so I can have a go at getting the wiki docs into some kind of source control. What source format do we want? HTML? Docbook a la the main distribution? HTML would obviously require less effort at build time, so I would probably vote for it just on those grounds... Cheers Tom