Tom Lane wrote: > Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of > Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and > fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows > is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to find out. > Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a > Unix variant. > > Partly this is a matter of wanting to protect Postgres' reputation. > Just on sheer numbers, if there is a native Windows port then there are > likely to be huge numbers of people using Postgres on Windows. If > that's not going to be a reliable combination, we need to know it and > tell them so up-front. Otherwise, people will be blaming Postgres, not > Windows, when they lose data. It's an entirely different situation from > whether Postgres-on-Joe-Blow's-Unix-Variant loses data, first because of > visibility, and second because of the different user base. Am I being > paranoid to suspect that the average Postgres-on-Windows user will be > less clueful than the average Postgres-on-Unix user? I don't think so.
Assuming all your assumptions are right, why the hell is Oracle's and MS SQL-Server's reputation that bloody good? And what about MySQL? They all have a native Windows (sup)port for some time ... didn't harm their reputation. I think that we got in bed with this ugly Cybill ... er ... Cygwin thing had cost us more reputation than the sucking performance of pre-7 releases all together. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
