Jan Wieck wrote: > We have ARC, the background writer and vacuum delay, and people even ask > me for backports of that (I have one for vacuum delay, but refuse to > make one for the others). How long do you want to delay that being ready > for production? Do you really think people that are suffering from the > fact that checkpoints, vacuum runs and pg_dumps bog down their machines > to the state where simple queries take several seconds care that much > for any Win32 port? Do you think it is a good sign for those who have > been our traditional Unix user base that we delay the important > enhancements that they need because we want to attract a lot of > non-professional users in Windows land? I think that is the wrong signal > to send. However important for marketing the Win32 port is, there are > other things in the pipeline that are important for those users we have > won already long time ago. Let's rather not lose them.
Sure those are nifty enhancements, but they are not really new features. I would rather call them performance enhancements. Sure, there are some folks who can't use PostgreSQL without them, but they are not like PITR or nested transactions where you really can't easily work around the limitation. Sure, you can work around the lack of a Win32 port with Cygwin, and maybe use replication in place of PITR, but the big question is are you hitting a large precentage of users with an enhancement. I am sure i can get some "me too's" for your improvements, but it doesn't represeent dramatic new functionality for PostgreSQL. I personally don't think Win32 is enough of a new feature either, but others disagree. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
