Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi all, In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same vein, our computerisation culture is different. Having lived in Indonesia, I can sympathize with your situation. It is not just Africa, but most of the developing world. I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows. That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL, you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment, peculiarities and experiences. If you want a reasonable open source RDBMS for production use on Wondows, I would suggest that you use Firebird. However if Windows is not the selling point, consider the following: 1) You may be able to get extra use out of older systems by installing Linux and PostgreSQL. This may perform better than Windows and Firebird as long as you don't need a GUI. This may be more reliable than Windows especially if you can't afford high-end hardware (ECC RAM, SCSI drives, etc) for your production servers anyway. 2) The PL's available for PostgreSQL add a lot of flexability. As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any problems so far. The glory of open source is that people will do what they want with it. PostgreSQL for Windows is not really something I would run a large production database on at the moment. However, open source tools tend to develop in strange ways. I am sure that as PostgreSQL on Windows becomes more popular, the issues will get worked out as much as possible. Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients' operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on some of the servers. Command Prompt's solution works on Windows. Slony will require some porting, but if this is important, you can hire a programmer to help with the porting :-) Otherwise you can wait for someone else to do it. I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Check the archives about Slony-I and Windows. Maybe ask the developers how much work it would be to port it. If labor is inexpensive in Nigeria, maybe you can hire a programmer to do it. Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final blueprint on PostgreSQL. I need your advice on this. 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. Ok, maybe others can provide more refined estimates, but I expect that it will be 1-2 years before PostgreSQL on Windows is mature enough for higher-load purposes. You can however help by using it, and communicating your experiences with programmers. If this is not enough, you can even pay someone to fix things for you. These are selling points of open source software. 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? b. Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community? As much as I don't like to speak for others, I read this as saying something like: We (the core developers) began work on the Windows port because we wanted to support developers running PostgreSQL on their systems. c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable database? I think the core team takes all aspects of PostgreSQL very seriously.
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi, I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? At the moment? There are some known issues... Bear in mind that the Windows port is quite new, and much less tested than on other platforms. Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. I would assume that most of the Linux-only tools would work equally well on AIX, Solaris, *BSD, IRIX, etc. Not sure what you mean by Linux Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them. Until 8.0, PostgreSQL was not available natively on Windows. If you wanted to run it on Windows prior, you had to install it via Cygwin (a POSIX emulation layer). So the fact that there are few tools is mostly due to the newness of the software on that platform. Give it some time, and the tools will be ported. Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. Again give it some time. However, as a second point, I would point out that *I* would never run production databases on Windows. This is because I don't trust the platform not to crash and mess up my data, and my data is worth the best hardware and software. PostgreSQL on Windows is, however, nice for developers who want to run it on their development efforts. But YMMV. And again, this is not the reason for the dearth of tools, but something to think about when deploying a solution. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...it will be the first time they have seen your name... ...with your first email have criticised the project... Check the archives. This poster has been active on the list for awhile. He has indeed, and even posted a news item, but it will still be the first time many people have seen Tope's name. Given the traffic on the various lists and the number of new users we've gained recently, you need to post a *lot* for people to recognise you. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
* Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] [0336 21:36]: With the attitude of Windows can not be made to reliably run a database, how many developers do you think will be attracted? People are entitled to an opinion, and in many cases its formed from experience. I think it's unrealistic to expect a large team of programmers who have been using *NIX to think windows is equally good. If they did, they'd run on it, right? The process model is presumably there because for 90% of platforms it makes sense to do it that way. No-one is going to object to a well-written thread based postmaster, but it's expecting a bit much for it to spring into life off the bat. To me a database is a service, like a dns or dhcp server, and wanting to put it on windoms is like wanting to run BIND or IPF on there. For most people it's going to be easier to stick a linux on a dedicated box and run postgresql on that. I don't see what the problem is with that. Just to be clear: I have no interest or opinion in windows, microsoft or anything else that makes slashdotters jump up and down beyound playing civ3 on it. You like it, that's great. The one thing the world does'nt need is another 'my os can beat up your os' thread. -- 'That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.' -- Prof. Farnsworth Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Richard Huxton wrote: It can also be bad - the more time spent supporting Windows, the less time is spent working on PostgreSQL itself. Unless the Windows support attracts more resources. Personally I'd be surprised if that's not the case. That's clearly a decision only you can make. Getting replication working on Windows will happen quicker the more people help. If all you want is an off-machine backup, perhaps look at PITR (see manuals for details). If you're using a Java based client perhaps something like C-JDBC http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org would help. It's known to run well with PostgreSQL. Regards, Thomas Hallgren ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
That remains to be seen. I wouldn't consider it the least bit worthwhile to try to evaluate it now, as what is happening now is that WinFolk are getting their very first exposure to the software. It would seem surprising for new developers to emerge from the Windows(tm) population before at least 6 months have passed. The way developers emerge is that users come along, work with the software for a while, and discover things that itch them the wrong way. They have become sufficiently committed that it is worth putting a little effort into scratching some of the itches. That starts getting them into understanding the code a little better, allowing them to subsequently scratch deeper itches. -- output = reverse(moc.liamg @ enworbbc) http://linuxdatabases.info/info/nonrdbms.html Share and Enjoy!! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim C. Nasby): With the attitude of Windows can not be made to reliably run a database, how many developers do you think will be attracted? That remains to be seen. I wouldn't consider it the least bit worthwhile to try to evaluate it now, as what is happening now is that WinFolk are getting their very first exposure to the software. It would seem surprising for new developers to emerge from the Windows(tm) population before at least 6 months have passed. The way developers emerge is that users come along, work with the software for a while, and discover things that itch them the wrong way. They have become sufficiently committed that it is worth putting a little effort into scratching some of the itches. That starts getting them into understanding the code a little better, allowing them to subsequently scratch deeper itches. -- output = reverse(moc.liamg @ enworbbc) http://linuxdatabases.info/info/nonrdbms.html Share and Enjoy!! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
An idea I like, because I have entrenched windows clients also, is to run things that run best under Linux on VMWare (vmware.com) and to run good Windows things (like desktop apps) under Windows. Linux can be either the host or guest OS under VMWare, so the options of which OS is truly in control are symmetrical. I'm proposing this to my customer to solve a completely different set of problems (not PostgreSQL related) but the approach might have merit here as well. If anyone has tried this please respond. Thanks, Rick Neil Dugan [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org hes.com.au cc: Sent by:Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only? [EMAIL PROTECTED] gresql.org 03/10/2005 05:29 PM On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:19 +, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi all, --- cut --- I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Have you tried to setup the PostgreSQL server on a Linux computer (with replication) and use it via PostgreSQL clients running on Windows(tm) computers. This way your clients will still have the OS they are use to and the database server will be running on the best OS for it. --- cut --- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Richard Huxton wrote: 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? In an email in the public lists we = Tom b. Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community? Official pronouncements from core will be marked as such. No-one speaks for the entire PostgreSQL community. You're part of that community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the lists. As a core member I can confirm that we = Tom in this context. The core group has made no decisions about the relative stability of Win32 vs Unix, and is unlikely to in the future. The decision about operating system and stability are to be made by end-users based on their experience. We do our best to make all platforms as well supported as possible. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (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 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
An idea I like, because I have entrenched windows clients also, is to run things that run best under Linux on VMWare (vmware.com) and to run good Windows things (like desktop apps) under Windows. Linux can be either the host or guest OS under VMWare, so the options of which OS is truly in control are symmetrical. I'm proposing this to my customer to solve a completely different set of problems (not PostgreSQL related) but the approach might have merit here as well. If anyone has tried this please respond. Do *not* do this with a production database. Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of those) thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will almost certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just puts it in the RAM cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on the disk/raid. This is vmware workstation, of course. I'm sure their server line of products act differently. //Magnus ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 10:10 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : An idea I like, because I have entrenched windows clients also, is to run things that run best under Linux on VMWare (vmware.com) and to run good Windows things (like desktop apps) under Windows. Linux can be either the host or guest OS under VMWare, so the options of which OS is truly in control are symmetrical. I'm proposing this to my customer to solve a completely different set of problems (not PostgreSQL related) but the approach might have merit here as well. If anyone has tried this please respond. =:-D A man with good ideas! Yes this rocks. I had a database running like this for quite some time at a clients. It was an NT server running on a Linux host but other way round it works just as well. This permits easy replication, easy backup (take a VMware snapshot of your virtual disk from time to time). I could ssh into the Linux box and reboot the NT virtual machine after working hours. Right now the high end virtualisation stuff from the ESX and GSX virtual machines is trickling down into the Workstation variant. You will be able to do much more with the VMware 5 Workstation which is on beta test at the moment. For all Windows shops this is a very good way of running Linux without getting your hands dirty. I would recommend http://lwn.net/Articles/69534/ any distribution based on RHEL. If you decide to go all the way later you will already have RHEL experience for $189 outlay - the cost of the VMware workstation licence. Cheers Tony ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 16:51 +0100, Magnus Hagander a écrit : Do *not* do this with a production database. Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of those) thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will almost certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just puts it in the RAM cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on the disk/raid. Putting Windows NT inside a virtual machine (VMware workstation) solved all hardware stability problems in my case. NT would only crash if we forgot to reboot every 45 days or so... The Linux host had a 9 month uptime at one point. If you could be more explicit as to why VMware client does not write to disk I would much appreciate. I was thinking of virtualising a couple of servers (Linux client on Linux host). TIA Tony Grant ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Do *not* do this with a production database. Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of those) thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will almost certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just puts it in the RAM cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on the disk/raid. Putting Windows NT inside a virtual machine (VMware workstation) solved all hardware stability problems in my case. NT would only crash if we forgot to reboot every 45 days or so... The Linux host had a 9 month uptime at one point. If you could be more explicit as to why VMware client does not write to disk I would much appreciate. I was thinking of virtualising a couple of servers (Linux client on Linux host). TIA PostgreSQL relies on fsync() putting your data all the way through to the disc. It must *not* stay in cache memory, because then you can lose transactions. If write ordering is also lost (which is likely in this case), you can get a corrupt database. In the tests I've been running on vmware, a fsync() in the guest OS will flush it out of the guest OSs buffer, but the data will stay in the host OS buffers. This means that you may be hosed if your host OS crashes. It should survive a *guest* OS crash without problems. I haven't had any actual crashes on this, but there is plenty of evidence that syncing doesn't go all the way through (see my other mail) at least with Windows as the host OS. Which means you are basically running with write-cache enabled all the time with no way to turn it off, and some reading of the pg lists should tell you how bad that is. It's possible this works fine if you use direct disk access in vmware (giving the session a native disk to access), but I haven't tried that. After some looking around (and with some hints from Dave Page) for my own needs of virtualising linux-on-linux, I've moved to linux-vservers. While it doesn't virtualise everything, it's good enough for me. I suggest you at least look at it before going down the vmware path - it's also free software unlike vmware. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 17:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander a écrit : Do *not* do this with a production database. Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of those) thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will almost certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just puts it in the RAM cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on the disk/raid. ...snip It's possible this works fine if you use direct disk access in vmware (giving the session a native disk to access), but I haven't tried that. OK! I understand your worries now. I always do this because initial reading through the different disk modes when 3.0 came out made my hair stand on end. The speed and size of disks today means that each virtual machine can treat a part of the disk as its own as far as I'm concerned. The other disk modes always seemed strange to me - maybe they have uses for others... When I am in my virtual machine I like to see the HD diode go on each time I do a save, improves my tan =:-D After some looking around (and with some hints from Dave Page) for my own needs of virtualising linux-on-linux, I've moved to linux-vservers. While it doesn't virtualise everything, it's good enough for me. I suggest you at least look at it before going down the vmware path - it's also free software unlike vmware. Looked at that. It requires heavy guru voodoo magic at host OS install time. VMware (I already own the licence I was going to use) can be installed on a machine that is up and running. Thanks Tony ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP. It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding. Except for the firewall/Nat server, of course :D -- Alban Hertroys ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
While we run PostgreSQL on Free-BSD for our production systems, we have 'demo' laptop windows XP systems that contain the entire server architecture (application server, database, win32 client, etc). Sure is handy to be able to run PostgreSQL on windows and not have to change anything.. PostgreSQL on Windows has 2 uses. It is for developers to play around with, and it is for smaller businesses with few connections to use. One you need to scale, you will probably have to go to Linux, BSD, etc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Hi all, In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same vein, our computerisation culture is different. I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows. That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL, you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment, peculiarities and experiences. As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any problems so far. Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients' operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on some of the servers. I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted mypost - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final blueprint on PostgreSQL. I need your advice on this. 1.If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. 2.This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want todo testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). a.Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about?b.Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community?c.Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable database?d.And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish? I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason. In fact one of my two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the same boat. So it is good to support many boats. Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows? If not, I think at this stage I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations. I am just expanding my varieties. I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some support from some sources, fine. Off the topic:--Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame. I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The company that uses them are up and running; not as if only organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS? If PostgreSQL cannot thrive where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do often witness many utility *NIX
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 10:19, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi all, Howdy. Glad to have you on the lists. 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. That's the first problem. PostgreSQL is new on windows. 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). This is the second problem. Windows simply has problems that cause data relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future. a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? The PostgreSQL Global Development Group, I'd suppose. That's the core team that makes the big decisions. c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable database? That would be a bit harsh. It's more a combination of several things. 1: Windows / postgresql is quite a bit slower than unix / postgresql. 2: The Windows port is known to have a few issues with heavy load on Windows. 3: PostgreSQL on Windows is a new port, and therefore needs a bit of a shakedown cruise before anyone can definitively say it's stable, fast and reliable. d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish? They could, but I'm not sure they would. It's really up to the folks who developed the port to windows to keep it working and up to date. IF some basic core part of postgresql was changed, and that broke the windows port, and no one was willing or able to fix it, then yes, I guess the port might be abandoned. But that's no more likely for Windows than any other semi-obscure platform that postgresql runs on like AIX or SCO unix. Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows? If not, I think at this stage I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations. I am just expanding my varieties. Any new port of a database to a new operating system presents the possibility that some corner case that no one has tested before will pop up and corrupt your data at some point. So, from that perspective, PostgreSQL on windows is not considered 100% reliable yet. Not because of a lot of known problems, but because of a lack of heavy testing in a large and diverse group of production environments. Off the topic: -- Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame. I do not seem to be comfortable with this Windows will spoil PostgreSQL reputation position as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. But those databases have years to get shaken down into shape. PostgreSQL is new on that platform, so caution is a good thing there. I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now. I encourage you to keep using it, and contribute in any way you can. PostgreSQL has one of the most active and helpful user communities there is around any open source project. And it's a great database to boot. I never thought your post was a troll, by the way. I just thought you weren't very familiar with the whole PostgreSQL ported to Windows set of issues and therefore phrased your questions in ways that made some eyebrows pop up. Welcome to the community! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tope, As someone who's been on these lists for several years now, I can honestly say they're among the friendliest and most helpful I've found. i can certainly echo that sentiment. from what i can tell, Tom in particular (since he's been 'called out' here) has (most of the time ...) the patience and good will of a saint ... you can do a LOT worse (e.g. a 17-yr old CustSvc rep @ M$) than having someone like him -- and many others -- here to interact with. in the end, there's lots of good bad DB software on all platforms. imho, its adoption for business purposes ONLY makes sense if there's strong support for it. that support -- whehter it be 'run time' or 'development' can come from (a) your own org (b) help from others on this list (c) formal support from the likes of Command Prompt (unabshed free plug, Josh) when i wear my casual/individual user hat, i depend on this list flame when people actually (bother to) answer my (sometimes misguided) questions ;-) /flame when wearing my business hat, i NEVER deploy a pgsql solution -- or any other db for that matter -- without some internal ((a)) competence/support if ONLY to have someone to adequately interact with this list (b), and professionally contracted support (c). just my $0.02 ... richard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
...it will be the first time they have seen your name... ...with your first email have criticised the project... Check the archives. This poster has been active on the list for awhile. Cheers, Rick Richard Huxton dev@archonet.com To: Tope Akinniyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only? tgresql.org 03/10/2005 01:31 PM Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi all, In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same vein, our computerisation culture is different. I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows. That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL, you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment, peculiarities and experiences. Not that different from Europe, or I'd guess the U.S. - in many small businesses computers mean Windows. Certainly five year ago customers looked at you funny if you wanted to run on Linux/*BSD. As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any problems so far. Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients' operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on some of the servers. I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final blueprint on PostgreSQL. I need your advice on this. 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features of a man. Nobody can stop you using PostgreSQL. Ever. Or from giving it away, making changes, selling it etc. 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about? In an email in the public lists we = Tom b. Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community? Official pronouncements from core will be marked as such. No-one speaks for the entire PostgreSQL community. You're part of that community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the lists. c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:39:53AM -0600, Doug Hall wrote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:02:10 -0600, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. Perhaps someone on the list who knows and uses the different operating systems could set up a lab, to compare PostgreSQL between them. Perhaps the latest Windows Server, a popular distribution of Linux, and Mac OS X? Has this already been done, with regard to performance? There is a perftest project on either pgfoundry or gborg that has been doing performance testing. I think it's all being done on linux right now, but it would certainly be interesting to compare linux, freebsd, and windows. Unfortunately, there's no way to do an apples-to-apples (pun intended) comparison with OS X, since not all of the OS's will run on the same hardware. Linux will run on Power, though, as will OpenBSD. I think FreeBSD's support is still pretty bare, but I'm not certain. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 09:47:17AM -0800, Ben wrote: Ho ho, flame on! :) My completely annecodal experience with devs which prefer windows over posix is that the former prods things until they seem to work and accepts unexplained behavior far more readily than the latter. Do I *really* want that kind of mentality in my database devs? Of course not, and I don't think there's any risk of this happening. Are you aware that every patch submitted for inclusion goes through a code review? It's very insightful to see the discussion and mentality on the -hackers list; data integrity is always the absolute number 1 priority. Anyone who wants to code for PostgreSQL who doesn't share that priority won't last long at all. Anyway, I think you have the focus wrong. It's not: run our software on what we tell you to it's more: we believe this platform is better than others, so we'll write our free software for that. But if you want to port it over to the platform of your choice, have fun doing that. With the attitude of Windows can not be made to reliably run a database, how many developers do you think will be attracted? -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:51:43PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: Jim C. Nasby wrote: Ok--- I will admit to a anti-Windows bias. But at least my bias is informed. In addition to my former employment at Microsoft, I have studies both types of OS's in detail. Here are some specific comments I would make: 1) I do not expect PostgreSQL to *ever* perform as well on Windows as it does on Linux. This is primarily due to the fundamentally different emphasis in kernel architecture between UNIX-style and VMS-style operating systems. Windows server applications which are process-based are always likely to underperform. Windows applications ported to Linux are similarly likely to underperform. This is akin to saying that an application written to use MySQL will never perform well on PostgreSQL. It depends on *how* the code is written. If your SQL is tuned to one database, it will likely have performance issues on other databases. Likewise, a process-based server will perform poorly on Windows, while a threaded server will not. This is an implimentation choice. There's no reason why PostgreSQL on windows *has* to be process based (though of course there would be serious technical issues with changing it). Of course, by simply hand waving and saying it can never be better, it never will be better. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). This is the second problem. Windows simply has problems that cause data relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future. Do you have any references to these problems? I've seen several people mention things like this in passing, but I have yet to see any specifics. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:19 +, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi all, --- cut --- I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS. Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY? Have you tried to setup the PostgreSQL server on a Linux computer (with replication) and use it via PostgreSQL clients running on Windows(tm) computers. This way your clients will still have the OS they are use to and the database server will be running on the best OS for it. --- cut --- ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 15:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092: We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). This is the second problem. Windows simply has problems that cause data relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future. Do you have any references to these problems? I've seen several people mention things like this in passing, but I have yet to see any specifics. I'd have to look through the -hackers list and a few other places, but what I remember seeing was problems in the general area of unreliable journaling / disk syncing et. al. It's been a while. Plus my experience has been that Windows often behaves in unpredictable ways when it's running under a heavy load, so I'd expect race conditions to show up under those circumstances, and possibly corrupt data. It's certainly been a problem for most large SQL Server installations I've dealt with. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
From: Tope Akinniyi snip experiences. As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any problems so far. /snip Dear Tope, My apologies that I cannot answer your questions directly, hopefully someone else will on the list. Understand that this is not really that much of a cultural issue. Both Linux and Postgres are born from interational cooperation. Even in the United States, windows use is pervasive, with very little support or desire for Linux (or other non-windows operating systems). The long history of Posix systems in the United States is really limited to educational, research institutions and a very small percentage of commercial enterprises. Linux has changed this a little over the last 5 years or so. But I personally know dozens of IT professionals local to my area and only one of them is what I would call a linux expert. This same ratio applies to the end user market. If what your customers really want is reliablity and replication options, then that currently conflicts with Windows and Postgres. Noone can really guarantee that will change. But I submit that if you really want to acheive excellence in the IT business you will educate yourself and then your customers about using Linux for dedicated database services. You will realize high reliability and easy maintenance for very low per user cost as compared to just about anything else. You may want to contact the folks at this web address for local linux support. http://nglug.org/ In any case I wish you the best of luck in your business. Best regards, Jim Wilson ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Jim C. Nasby wrote: On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: This is the second problem. Windows simply has problems that cause data relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future. Do you have any references to these problems? I've seen several people mention things like this in passing, but I have yet to see any specifics. I deal with clients who use all variations of windows OSs. I've previously worked for a large company who used both Unix and Windows servers. In every case, the Windows boxes were/are more susceptible to simply locking up or crashing. When your only resolution is to power cycle the server, you're going to trash your database. I've seen it on xp, nt, 200?... I don't do development on Windows boxes anymore. It's just too frustrating with the stability issues. -- Until later, Geoffrey ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Okay, I'll split them with you. I remember the Groton Database Corp. of
Groton Connecticut, whose marketing people didn't like the sound of
*Groton*, and renamed the company Interbase and the product InterBase (note
caps). Ashton Tate came along years later and bought the company to
increase their own salability to Borland. I bought InterBase from
Interbase Corp. in 1991 for HP-UX.
Rick
Edwin New
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent by: cc:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [GENERAL]
PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
tgresql.org
03/09/2005 12:02 AM
I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase? If
so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows
database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).
Edwin New.
-Original Message-
From: Uwe C. Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:49 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we
encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
for
Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to
encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except
the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that.
To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which
probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if
your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the
fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame.
I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put
code
like:
if os=win {
errormessage(this software is not ported to windows yet);
exit(99);
}
into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to
run
it on windows.
I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
users.
We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years
ago.
Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil
is
not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
shown to be deficient.
The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
see that their OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a
question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 21:24, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi, I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only. Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them. Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. I think you misunderstand the basic open source model. People get an itch, they scratch it. Right now, there are very few postgresql on windows users, because it is so new. There are lots and lots of postgresql on UNIX (not just linux btw) folks. So, there are more people scratching itches on unix than on windows. As the number of Windows users grows, the number of folks who feel a need to port things originally written for unix will grow. At my last company, they brought in a (possibly clinically insane) CIO who decided that all this Unix stuff was outdated, and hey, it worked at my subdivision of 20 IT and 200 sales staff at my last company, so it ought to work here with 300 IT and 200 other folks, right? So, my buddy who is unfortunately still stuck there has had to port all of our internal apps to run on windows, and the port of postgresql to windows was a great help for him. He's one of those people we may find scratching an itch some day. But it's organic, it happens when it happens. Who knows, one day one of the core postgresql developers might be a windows expert. I'm quite certain that if you see something that doesn't work on windows, and you do make it work on windows, your patches for that something will likely be accepted with grace. But the unix users aren't going to install windows just to do it for you and the other windows users. They have other things to do. Give it time... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tom Lane wrote: Tope Akinniyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. This is a troll, isn't it? My thinking as well, unfortunately, has hooked some folks... -- Until later, Geoffrey ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
--- Uwe C. Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't see that their OS is pretty instable. That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are referring to the non-NT variations. Regards, Shelby Cain __ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that it runs on windows. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Shelby Cain wrote: --- Uwe C. Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't see that their OS is pretty instable. That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are referring to the non-NT variations. O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However there are a couple of things I know. 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable. However there is a caveat, it still can not perform under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux or other UNIX variants can. 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and performs fairly well under load. However it still can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants. The majority of the problem with Windows in these days is people who hire other people with little pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable. A properly managed Windows server can be reliable, can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you feel like you have it when you don't. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Regards, Shelby Cain __ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL begin:vcard fn:Joshua Drake n:Drake;Joshua org:Command Prompt, Inc. adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Consultant tel;work:503-667-4564 tel;fax:503-210-0334 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.commandprompt.com version:2.1 end:vcard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:02:10 -0600, Jim C. Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. Perhaps someone on the list who knows and uses the different operating systems could set up a lab, to compare PostgreSQL between them. Perhaps the latest Windows Server, a popular distribution of Linux, and Mac OS X? Has this already been done, with regard to performance? Doug ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Ho ho, flame on! :) My completely annecodal experience with devs which prefer windows over posix is that the former prods things until they seem to work and accepts unexplained behavior far more readily than the latter. Do I *really* want that kind of mentality in my database devs? Anyway, I think you have the focus wrong. It's not: run our software on what we tell you to it's more: we believe this platform is better than others, so we'll write our free software for that. But if you want to port it over to the platform of your choice, have fun doing that. On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote: Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that it runs on windows. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: Where do you want to go today? Linux: Where do you want to go tomorrow? FreeBSD: Are you guys coming, or what? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
I don't think so, if you consider a troll to be someone who doesn't care about the topic, but rather wishes to stir up newbies and flamers. A search of the archives shows the sender has a history of asking valid questions and offering advice on-topic. That said, the result is the same. Cheers, Rick Geoffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only? tgresql.org 03/09/2005 11:28 AM Tom Lane wrote: Tope Akinniyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. This is a troll, isn't it? My thinking as well, unfortunately, has hooked some folks... -- Until later, Geoffrey ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 à 09:47 -0800, Ben a écrit : Ho ho, flame on! :) Hear hear!!! This man is a troll if ever we have seen one. Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that it runs on windows. Excuse me dear sir. There seems to be about 97% of the world that runs Windows that does not give you permission to be rude to a tiny minority who just happen to have written an insanely great database that runs quite nicely on their hobby OSs as well as the crap you call home. If you aren't pleased with the postgresql support on Windows don't use it!!! That is your freedom. Ours is to think (maybe wrongly) that it is much better running it on the BSDs and Linux of our choice. That is our freedom. There is nothing egoist about developing a great database server on an OS with a tiny user base. The egoists are elsewhere dear sir, far from the free software developers, in the closed source world. The code is there, it is free - go and improve it. Maybe you need a dictionary to look up the word egoist? Please go and troll over at MySQL. They have a Windows version too and maybe a lot more time and patience for rude people such as yourself. Tony ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
I thank you all for throwing light on the question I asked. I was exchanging mails with one of the developers on PgFoundry. He made a comment and said 'Is anybody using PostgreSQL on Windows?'. I began to wonder, was the Windows version a toy? I head a software development outfit in Nigeria and our environment in predominantly Windows. People using Oracle, MSSQL and the likes on Windows. I thought PostgreSQL would be a substitute for such being an Open Source believer - Till now I have deplored much of Firebird for my clients on Windows. Well, much without much headaches I must say. From your views, I can conclude that I must not go near using or deploying PostgreSQL on production Windows servers. Thanks for that information. But I was of the opinion that perfection comes out of practice and that certain crashes and experimentation(s) would lead to a better product adaptation. But I think Tim Allen's comment is quite unexpected and unfortunate. Tim Allen wrote: Perhaps it's a 419 :-). But if so I can't see the catch yet - must be very subtle. What is 419 about expressing a concern and an interest? So because I posted from Nigeria and my view is a bit not aligned with your own I am a fraudster? I do not think we are in a chat room. Even if you must joke you need to avoid sentimental words. Thank you all. I think the matter is closed. --- Best regards, Tope Akinniyi CEO ShepherdHill Software Lagos, Nigeria Do not forget: Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, tony wrote: Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 à 09:47 -0800, Ben a écrit : Ho ho, flame on! :) Hear hear!!! This man is a troll if ever we have seen one. Who? Jim Nasby? He's made several helpful posts to this list in my memory, and I'm sure an archive search would turn up a lot more. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
tony wrote: Excuse me dear sir. There seems to be about 97% of the world that runs Windows that does not give you permission to be rude to a tiny minority who just happen to have written an insanely great database that runs quite nicely on their hobby OSs as well as the crap you call home. If you aren't pleased with the postgresql support on Windows don't use it!!! That is your freedom. Ours is to think (maybe wrongly) that it is much better running it on the BSDs and Linux of our choice. That is our freedom. There is nothing egoist about developing a great database server on an OS with a tiny user base. The egoists are elsewhere dear sir, far from the free software developers, in the closed source world. The code is there, it is free - go and improve it. Maybe you need a dictionary to look up the word egoist? Please go and troll over at MySQL. They have a Windows version too and maybe a lot more time and patience for rude people such as yourself. Tony This thread is getting a bit carried away, don't you think? If this keeps up, these fora run the risk of turning into the gong show that the c.d.oracle.* newsgroup frequently becomes. If you think it's a legitimate flame, why not ignore it, instead of adding to the noise? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Joshua, Very well put ! Cheers, Aly. Joshua D. Drake wrote: Shelby Cain wrote: --- Uwe C. Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't see that their OS is pretty instable. That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are referring to the non-NT variations. O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However there are a couple of things I know. 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable. However there is a caveat, it still can not perform under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux or other UNIX variants can. 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and performs fairly well under load. However it still can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants. The majority of the problem with Windows in these days is people who hire other people with little pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable. A properly managed Windows server can be reliable, can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you feel like you have it when you don't. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Regards, Shelby Cain __ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Aly Dharshi [EMAIL PROTECTED] A good speech is like a good dress that's short enough to be interesting and long enough to cover the subject ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tope Akinniyi) writes: I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. When people interested in deploying on Windows(tm) start contributing code to the projects, then the tide may turn. Looking at what I'm working on (Slony-I), that is indeed the requirement in order for Slony-I to be supported on Windows. I don't use Windows(tm) in any context, so I lack all of all of the following prerequisites: a) Interest b) Platform knowledge c) Development tools I wouldn't oppose the notion of someone with Windows(tm) interest, Windows(tm) knowledge, and access to Windows(tm) development tools contributing support for their platform. But someone else will have to bring those things to the table. You are NOT going to be forcing me to start doing Windows(tm) development for any of my bits of the PostgreSQL software base; the only way to get my bits ported is to find some interested Windows(tm) developer. And if nobody is sufficiently interested to do so, that obviously means that there _isn't_ that much interest in supporting Windows(tm) for Slony-I. Much the same is quite likely to be true for numerous of the PgFoundry projects. Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them. It took a LOT of years for the Windows tools to emerge; InterBase spent a number of years as a Unix-only application. Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. This is NOT an issue of the goodness/badness of Windows, and is CERTAINLY NOT a matter of Linux being considered an angel, as numerous of the PostgreSQL developers are no more fans of Linux than they are of Windows(tm). It is nonsense to consider it some Linux/Windows game, particularly when most of the PostgreSQL Core prefer BSD 4.4-Lite variants. [My metric there is that I have seen numerous cases of Core members who develop on FreeBSD and NetBSD, whereas I am not yet specifically aware of any that prefer Linux.] It is a matter that in order for additional applications to be deployed on Windows(tm), it is necessary to find developers that are familiar with the platform that are interested in doing the deployment. If the set of people that come from the Windows(tm) world are largely 'plain users' that have limited interest in helping develop improvements, then PostgreSQL will certainly remain with a STRONG Unix bias in what gets developed, and that's pretty much fair. -- let name=cbbrowne and tld=cbbrowne.com in String.concat @ [name;tld];; http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html A VAX is virtually a computer, but not quite. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
I thank you all for throwing light on the question I asked. [missed it earlier, not been reading that lists mail] I was exchanging mails with one of the developers on PgFoundry. He made a comment and said 'Is anybody using PostgreSQL on Windows?'. Yes. I know of several fairly large production installations running on win32. I don't have one myself at the moment, though. I began to wonder, was the Windows version a toy? No. It does *NOT* have the same performance as the Unix version. In some tests it comes fairly close. If your application does lots of connect/disconnects, we *know* it is *always* significantly slower. This can be mitigated by using connection pooling. Write intensive apps are significantly slower, but we hope to have that fixed in 8.0.2. The Windows version is also new. Therefor, one can expect there to be more problems with it. Both performance-wise and stability-wise. From your views, I can conclude that I must not go near using or deploying PostgreSQL on production Windows servers. Thanks for that information. But I was of the opinion that perfection comes out of practice and that certain crashes and experimentation(s) would lead to a better product adaptation. I personally wouldn't go that far. You should be fine to deploy postgresql on win32. Just not very large installations, and you may need to pay a bit more attention to your backups. Again, there *are* production deployments on the win32 version. Some are pretty large. Several have been running since beta1 (at least one since before beta1) without significant problems. Also, keep in mind that the postgresql community does not have a lot of experience with the win32 port either. So if you run into problem, there aren't as many experienced people around. Yet. Feel free to become one. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never** trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic. Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP. It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL begin:vcard fn:Joshua Drake n:Drake;Joshua org:Command Prompt, Inc. adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Consultant tel;work:503-667-4564 tel;fax:503-210-0334 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.commandprompt.com version:2.1 end:vcard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Quoting Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Shelby Cain wrote: --- Uwe C. Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't see that their OS is pretty instable. That may have been true in 1995. However, in this day and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are referring to the non-NT variations. O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However there are a couple of things I know. 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable. However there is a caveat, it still can not perform under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux or other UNIX variants can. 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and performs fairly well under load. However it still can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants. The majority of the problem with Windows in these days is people who hire other people with little pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable. A properly managed Windows server can be reliable, can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you feel like you have it when you don't. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Regards, Shelby Cain __ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never** trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Quoting Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never** trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic. Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP. It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL As with all things technology there is an art too it as well- several ways to do things. I don't, for instance, NAT/Port forward public interfaces for Linux hosts because in my experience they can be hardened without much ambiguity to be placed there. Similarly, I don't feel the same is true with most of the windows variants so for security sake increased an network complexity is justified. My point is that along with the performance issues this thread has point out, data security is another reason to consider a non-windows platform to run your production database. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
The beauty of an open source, BSD-licensed project like PostgreSQL is the entire Who cares? possibility list. If you have a Windows shop and you have Windows trained personnel, then you can use PostgreSQL. If you have a Linux shop and Linux trained personnel, then you can use PostgreSQL. If you have a FreeBSD shop and FreeBSD trained personnel, then you can use PostgreSQL. I think a picture is starting to form here. Monkey-wrench time... Suppose that I have a 4-way AMD64 Windows system running PostgreSQL and even that runs out of steam. I have added as much ram as the system will hold and the load is still causing problems. Now, I can get an IBM machine running SUSE with a pile of processors and gobs of ram and scale to whatever TPS I need. And the data + schema? Dump from the Windows box, load on the IBM SUSE box. I might even be able to SLONY it over without ever going off line. IOW -- what't the whole point of open source BSD licensed projects? It's that you just do whatever you like to solve the problem in the way that is best for your organization (with your personnel and your hardware and your training and your data). And if you need to scale to somewhere else, then you can do it. It's the best of all worlds. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Jim C. Nasby wrote: Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily than *nix. More important, the egotism of If you want to use PostgreSQL you better run it on what we tell you to run it on is certain to turn people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that it runs on windows. Ok--- I will admit to a anti-Windows bias. But at least my bias is informed. In addition to my former employment at Microsoft, I have studies both types of OS's in detail. Here are some specific comments I would make: 1) I do not expect PostgreSQL to *ever* perform as well on Windows as it does on Linux. This is primarily due to the fundamentally different emphasis in kernel architecture between UNIX-style and VMS-style operating systems. Windows server applications which are process-based are always likely to underperform. Windows applications ported to Linux are similarly likely to underperform. 2) Windows stability is getting far better, but does still lag behind that of Linux. 3) I think that it is very likely that you might be legally required to get CAL's for Windows Server in order to allow the systems to access PostgreSQL. While this is not enforced by the OS, I don't know whether the EULA requires it (my guess is that it does). PostgreSQL on Windows has 2 uses. It is for developers to play around with, and it is for smaller businesses with few connections to use. One you need to scale, you will probably have to go to Linux, BSD, etc. Best Wishes, Chris Travers ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Hi, I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only. Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows userswhether they need them. Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. Thanks.--- Best regards, Tope Akinniyi CEO ShepherdHill Software Lagos, Nigeria Do not forget: Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life.Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi, I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? I believe that there is a lot of encouragement of the use of PostgreSQL on Windows. However I also believe that the encouragement is two sided. It is great to get windows people to run PostgreSQL. It is better to get them to run PostgreSQL on Windows and then realize that Linux is that much better as a platform for PostgreSQL. It should also be noted that FreeBSD would also be a good choice. Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. Actually Command Prompt is about to release Mammoth Replicator 1.4 for Win32. It would have been out last week but our release manager (me) has been very ill. Also remember that Open Source people in general don't like Windows. Which is why you won't see a lot of projects for Windows. I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only. Well yes initially it was. However Mammoth PostgreSQL and Mammoth Replicator for Win32 will come with plPHP preinstalled for Win32. Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them. And? Firebird was originall a dos and the windows product. It didn't move to Linux/Unix until later in life. Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. Patience is a virtue. The Windows version of PostgreSQL is still very young. You have to give it time to get its feet underneat it. I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. It isn't a Linux-Windows game. It is the better platform game. It doesn't matter if it is Linux, Solaris or FreeBSD. Any one of these three is exponentially better than windows as a PostgreSQL database server. This may not be the case in 3 years but for now it is. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Thanks. --- Best regards, Tope Akinniyi *CEO /ShepherdHill Software/* Lagos, Nigeria *Do not forget:* /_Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life._/ Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL begin:vcard fn:Joshua Drake n:Drake;Joshua org:Command Prompt, Inc. adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Consultant tel;work:503-667-4564 tel;fax:503-210-0334 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.commandprompt.com version:2.1 end:vcard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 03:24 +, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi, I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only. Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users. We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them. Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be shown to be deficient. I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. Thanks. It's about supply and demand. If enough people demand these tools to work in windows, they will make it so. Often times, these projects are started for various reasons and *nix has been the standard platform for years. Windows is new to the game..and it'll take a while for these tools to be *migrated* to the windows world. It's not an evil conspiracy against windows..just like Linux users can point out that there not enough games for windows yet. The demand isn't high enough yet and as it increases..this will hopefully change a bit. -Robby -- /*** * Robby Russell | Owner.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON | www.planetargon.com * Portland, OR | [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 503.351.4730 | blog.planetargon.com * PHP-PostgreSQL Hosting Development * open source solutions - web hosting / ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:24:05AM +, Tope Akinniyi wrote: I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? I don't see the extreme Linux mentality you mention, and in any case maybe you mean Unix mentality, where Unix refers to a class of operating systems that includes but isn't limited to Linux. Subjects like PostgreSQL still for Linux only? are (mis)leading because PostgreSQL runs perfectly well on other Unix-like systems such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, and many others, to judge from directories like src/template in the source code. Linux is popular, but it's NOT the only Unix-like operating system around. Unfortunately the public is coming to equate the two, with the word Unix often prompting the question, You mean Linux? I will concede that a lot of tools in general tend to be written for Linux, sometimes without regard to whether they'll work even on other Unix-like operating systems. But the PostgreSQL project itself appears to care about portability, so the question Still for Linux only? should really be directed at the third-party software that some people find useful. -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tope Akinniyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. This is a troll, isn't it? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tom Lane wrote: Tope Akinniyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. This is a troll, isn't it? I don't know, the email was fairly thought out. I think it may have sounded a little off because it is from a non-native english speaker. Of course I could have just taken the bait :) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL begin:vcard fn:Joshua Drake n:Drake;Joshua org:Command Prompt, Inc. adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Consultant tel;work:503-667-4564 tel;fax:503-210-0334 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.commandprompt.com version:2.1 end:vcard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we
encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to
encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except
the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that.
To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame.
I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put code
like:
if os=win {
errormessage(this software is not ported to windows yet);
exit(99);
}
into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to run
it on windows.
I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users.
We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years ago.
Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is
not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
shown to be deficient.
The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
see that their OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and is
back where he was a month ago.
I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
far.
It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a mouse
attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
UC
- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax:+1 650 872 2417
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLoAijqGXBvRToM4RAu4ZAJ9Ed1kgGzNaFmVCgJSfZS1kAkm9HACfZ5bI
rSX4FvU1RxHR63sg6icE+gU=
=+NPW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Title: RE: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase? If so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).
Edwin New.
-Original Message-
From: Uwe C. Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:49 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we
encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to
encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except
the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that.
To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame.
I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put code
like:
if os=win {
errormessage(this software is not ported to windows yet);
exit(99);
}
into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to run
it on windows.
I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users.
We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years ago.
Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is
not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
shown to be deficient.
The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
see that their OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and is
back where he was a month ago.
I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
far.
It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a mouse
attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
UC
- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 650 872 2417
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLoAijqGXBvRToM4RAu4ZAJ9Ed1kgGzNaFmVCgJSfZS1kAkm9HACfZ5bI
rSX4FvU1RxHR63sg6icE+gU=
=+NPW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tom Lane wrote: Tope Akinniyi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too far. This is a troll, isn't it? Perhaps it's a 419 :-). But if so I can't see the catch yet - must be very subtle. regards, tom lane -- --- Tim Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proximity Pty Ltd http://www.proximity.com.au/ http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/rita_tim/ ---(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
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi, I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win. Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows platforms). I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame. i think, the win version of postgresql has been a very important step, i know developers who have taken an interest in postgresql because of this version, because they first tried it on windows. later on, most of these developers migrate to linux, but if you are a windows developer it is important to have the possibility to try it first without considering using a different platform. once we built a web application using linux+apache+php+postgresql and then needed to do a demonstration of the system on the client's computer, it was really easy to get it to work with win+iis+php+postgresql. so, thank you to all the people who has made this possible. also, i don't like windows, but many developers do, they prefer windows, or they are forced to use it as a platform for their applications. so, in many ways continuing with a windows version and developing tools for windows is very important for the postgresql community. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
I couldnt get it : Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Hi folks Tell me one thing... what is cygwin + postgresql then? I find it cool with Windows. And why Linux only? I successfully deployed it in various other platforms including AIX and IRIX.(Thanks to postgresql community. I think loading and running Oracle in Windows (or any other platform) is far more troublesome. If people can bear Oracle, they should gladly accept postgresql. Regards N Banerjee --- javier wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote: Hi, I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that. To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win. Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows platforms). I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame. i think, the win version of postgresql has been a very important step, i know developers who have taken an interest in postgresql because of this version, because they first tried it on windows. later on, most of these developers migrate to linux, but if you are a windows developer it is important to have the possibility to try it first without considering using a different platform. once we built a web application using linux+apache+php+postgresql and then needed to do a demonstration of the system on the client's computer, it was really easy to get it to work with win+iis+php+postgresql. so, thank you to all the people who has made this possible. also, i don't like windows, but many developers do, they prefer windows, or they are forced to use it as a platform for their applications. so, in many ways continuing with a windows version and developing tools for windows is very important for the postgresql community. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Tim Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Tom Lane wrote: This is a troll, isn't it? Perhaps it's a 419 :-). But if so I can't see the catch yet - must be very subtle. Nothing very subtle about it. In the first place, I'm not going to waste my breath debating anyone who thinks Linux == every Unix-ish platform. In the second, I'm not going to waste my breath debating anyone who thinks that Windows is now, or is likely to soon become, a reasonable platform to run a production database on. We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves feel a need to run Windows on their laptops). If anyone comes to me and says I lost data because I was running PG on Windows, I'm going to say you picked the wrong OS not you picked the wrong database. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thinking about it you may be right. I guess I'm misstaking it for something
else. Too many foxes out here nowadays :-)
To the topic: I don't argue the benefit of a native windows version from a
marketing point of view (although not so from a technical point of view). As
long as MS hasn't filed a chapter 11 the rest of the world will have to deal
with them. Therefor a native windows version is possibly the only way to make
postgresql more popular and sneak it into the one or other fortune 500
company.
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 09:02 pm, Edwin New wrote:
I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase? If
so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows
database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).
Edwin New.
-Original Message-
From: Uwe C. Schroeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:49 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we
encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
for Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done
to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them
except the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that.
To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which
probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if
your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the
fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame.
I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put
code
like:
if os=win {
errormessage(this software is not ported to windows yet);
exit(99);
}
into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to
run
it on windows.
I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
users.
We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years
ago.
Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil
is
not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
shown to be deficient.
The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
see that their OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a
question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and
is
back where he was a month ago.
I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
far.
It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a
mouse
attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
UC
- --
UC
- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax:+1 650 872 2417
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCLpKajqGXBvRToM4RAjb7AJ96fllQAqY6g6y3XxBzRi682+BvAgCg0XWx
/a9Y4VNCmPUlZQ+xlj1ZmJw=
=cHVW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
Hi,
I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we
encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
Linux except the Windows installer. I ask myself what is being done to
encourage PostgreSQL Windows users. Nothing is available to them except
the Database and PgAdmin. No replication tool, no this, no that.
To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this shitty free database system that's to blame.
I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put code
like:
if os=win {
errormessage(this software is not ported to windows yet);
exit(99);
}
into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to run
it on windows.
I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
Sorry for this: Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users.
We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years ago.
Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is
not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
shown to be deficient.
The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
see that their OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and is
back where he was a month ago.
I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
far.
It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
and it's fairly good on the desktop.
according to billy boy himself,
windows is designed to make it easier and more entertaining for people
to play video games on thier home computer*
so not even dektop, it was never meant for professional use.
Never trust a server that needs a mouse
attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
UC
*Bill Gates in press conference introducing windows 1.0 to the world.
personally, even the nt family, with the absolute requirement of using
video gaming technology, is not a professional os.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:02:46 +1100, Edwin New [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase? If so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories). InterBase started on Apollo Domain, a spectacularly wonderful workstation with terrific networking. The initial release supported Apollo, Sun, HP/UX, VAX/VMS, Ultrix, and something else that escapes me. So, if you wonder 'was InterBase originally a Windows/DOS system?', the answer is 'no'. From: http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=historyid=ann_2 (This page: http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=historyid=ann_1 says also: InterBase started in the shower. Maybe the something else that escapes me was NetBSD? ;-) Ian Barwick ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
Le mardi 08 mars 2005 à 22:17 -0800, J. Greenlees a écrit : I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community. And I ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all? I run my development server on Mac OS X. If a client asks me to provide my product to run with a Windows back end fine. But I won't be able to provide any support for performance issues or integration with the OS. I always thought the Windows version was a commodity for developers and/or for highly experienced Windows server admins. The kind that never complains because he knows what he is doing and his Windows servers just work. Cheers Tony ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
