Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Tom Lane wrote: Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects (like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will have double digits in version number component Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9? As for Ruby, it probably won't expect 9.9.9 in any foreseeable future. It takes +- 10 years to get to 1.8.1. Same with Python. But Perl will have 5.10.0. -- dave ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
This probably has been discussed and is probably a very minor point, but consider how many more years we want to be able to use the single digit.single digit major release numbering. Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 - 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to 8.0 now, then we have up until 2023. Also we have 1 more chance to skip major number: 8.x - 9.0. Imagine what features will there be in 9.0 that is ground-breaking enough. Because after that, we don't have any more major number to jump into without going into 2 digits. I personally don't see the major number as a very magical thing. Look at Linux for example. People still see 2.6 as very different/ahead compared to 2.4... -- dave ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
, 05.06.2004, 10:28, David Garamond : This probably has been discussed and is probably a very minor point, but consider how many more years we want to be able to use the single digit.single digit major release numbering. Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 - 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to 8.0 now, then we have up until 2023. Also we have 1 more chance to skip major number: 8.x - 9.0. Imagine what features will there be in 9.0 that is ground-breaking enough. Because after that, we don't have any more major number to jump into without going into 2 digits. What's the problem with 7.10? -- Markus Bertheau [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
From: David GaramondSent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AMCc: postgresql advocacy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 - 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to 8.0 now, then we have up until 2023. Hi Dave, I might be missing the point, but why can't we go to double figures? MS Office has, HP-UX has, OS-X, Norton AV has, Madrake Linux has... Regards, Dave
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dave Page wrote: From: David Garamond Sent: Sat 6/5/2004 9:28 AM Cc: postgresql advocacy; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Assuming 1 year between major releases (7.3.0 - 7.4.0 = +- 1 year), then we have 7.5-9.9 = 26 years = up until +- jul 2030. if we skip to 8.0 now, then we have up until 2023. Hi Dave, I might be missing the point, but why can't we go to double figures? MS Office has, HP-UX has, OS-X, Norton AV has, Madrake Linux has... Of course we can, I didn't say we can't. But double digits are sometimes undesirable because it can break some things. For example, a simple shell or Perl script might try to compare the version of two data directories by comparing the content of PG_VERSION stringwise. It then concludes that 7.10 is smaller than 7.4. Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects (like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will have double digits in version number component than people might think the same too and thus the habit of stringwise version comparison continues. -- dave ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
David Garamond [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Granted, the script itself is faulty, but since some other OS projects (like Ruby, with the same x.y.z numbering) do guarantee they never will have double digits in version number component Oh? What's their plan for the release after 9.9.9? In practice, non-broken bits of code don't make such an assumption, as there have always been lots of projects with double-digit version components. A quick grep for locally-installed packages finds autoconf-2.53.tar.gz binutils-2.10.1.tar.gz bison-1.875.tar.gz cvs-1.10.7.tar.gz emacs-19.34b.tar.gz expect-5.38.tar.gz gcc-2.95.3.tar.gz gettext-0.11.5.tar.gz ghostscript-6.50.tar.gz lesstif-0.89.9.tar.gz lsof_4.47_W.tar.gz make-3.79.1.tar.gz mysql-3.23.29a-gamma.tar.gz netcat-1.10.tar.gz ntp-4.0.99k.tar.gz procmail-3.22.tar.gz sendmail.8.12.11.tar.gz tar-1.13.tar.gz IMHO trying to avoid double-digit component numbers is just silly. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them seen to think that it's important for expanding our userbase: http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1SurveyID=9 That does not say that better entertainment will attract new viewers, just that the existing viewers think that. Perhaps more compelling is this survey, which shows that 21% of the users are on actually the win32/cygwin platform now hence are not enjoying the performance or ease of installation that the other 79% of us get. http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1SurveyID=11 -Nick ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:18:51PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote: Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the time. As for Sybase, you don't see that because Sybase on Windows was, for a long time, SQL Server. Not exaclty. Sybase 4.21 = MS SQL server 4.21. But then they ended their relationship (much like MS and IBM did over OS/2). This was somewhere around the mid 90's. Since then Sybase has renamed their enterprise product to Adaptive Server Enterprise, and versions 10, 11, 11.5 and beyond have always been available on windows. A few years after they split up with Microsoft, they bought the product SQL Anywhere (forgot the firm they bought it from). It took them a few years to make this product 100% SQL compatible with ASE. This product was ported to some Unix platforms around that time too. -- __ Nothing is as subjective as reality Reinoud van Leeuwen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xs4all.nl/~reinoud __ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter wrote: Also note that most major number changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move happening. Now that is interesting. I missed that. Can you explain how that worked with 7.0? Personally I thought that the 6.5-7.0 jump was a mistake ... but that's water over the dam now. I would be willing to call a PG release 8.0 when it has built-in replication support --- that would be the sort of major-league functionality jump that would justify a top-number bump. There are not that many other plausible reasons for a top-number bump that I can think of right now. PG is really getting to be a pretty mature product, and ISTM that should be reflected in a disinclination to call it all new. You can be dead certain that a Windows port will not be sufficient reason to call it 8.0. Perhaps 6.6.6 would the right starting version number for that one ;-) regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
-Original Message- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 November 2003 23:31 To: Josh Berkus Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Josh Berkus writes: Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to have to come up with better reasons. Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them seen to think that it's important for expanding our userbase: http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1SurveyID=9 That can't be a bad thing. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dann Corbit writes: Cygwin requires a license for commercial use. No, it does not. Really? What's this then? http://www.cygwin.com/licensing.html The Cygwin license, the GPL, specifically says: Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, ... So commercial use is clearly allowed. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be appropriate. It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature equivalent to an Oracle 8.0 database. That would mean: 1) PITR 2) Distributed Tx 3) Replication 4) Nested Tx 5) PL/SQL Exception Handling IMHO, a major version number jump should at least match the delta in features one finds in the commercial segment with their major version number bumps. Otherwise, I suspect it would be viewed as window dressing... Good point. To me the best argument against so far. Could be wrong, though... Mike Mascari [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards, Christoph ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dave Page writes: Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them seen to think that it's important for expanding our userbase: http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1SurveyID=9 That survey is a bit like asking television viewers, What do you think would attract the most new television viewers? 33% -- better entertainment That does not say that better entertainment will attract new viewers, just that the existing viewers think that. Most nonviewers might in fact be perfectly content with their way of living. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
-Original Message- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 November 2003 09:23 To: Dave Page Cc: Josh Berkus; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Dave Page writes: Least interesting to many user perhaps, but lost of them seen to think that it's important for expanding our userbase: http://www.postgresql.org/survey.php?View=1SurveyID=9 That survey is a bit like asking television viewers, What do you think would attract the most new television viewers? 33% -- better entertainment That does not say that better entertainment will attract new viewers, just that the existing viewers think that. Most nonviewers might in fact be perfectly content with their way of living. Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't know if it's actually right unless we try it. We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32', but the chances are that the vast majority of potential win32 users would not visit the site to answer that until it became widely know that we do support win32, by which time of course it's all a bit moot. Unless of course, you have other stats that prove that win32 support is uninteresting to most people and potential users? Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dave Page wrote: Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't know if it's actually right unless we try it. We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32', but the chances are that the vast majority of potential win32 users would not visit the site to answer that until it became widely know that we do support win32, by which time of course it's all a bit moot. Unless of course, you have other stats that prove that win32 support is uninteresting to most people and potential users? Regards, Dave. I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser quality, or otherwise inferior? I understand that the installation is a bit awkward for cygwin. I somehow don't see that as too much of a problem. As for usage - RedHat guidelines clearly state that OSI approved licensed programs will not be considered by them derived work of the cygwin dll (the one who's GPLness caused the original discussion). This, aside from the question of whether they have any claim on Posix utilities anyhow, or whether a commercial application using PGSQL should be considered derived work of it, mean to me that there is no problem in distributing a commercial app that uses Cygwin PostgreSQL. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Shachar Shemesh wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being alow here alow-slow Just wanted to avoid confusion. -- Shachar Shemesh Open Source integration consultant Home page resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/ ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Uytkownik Shachar Shemesh napisa: Dave Page wrote: Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't know if it's actually right unless we try it. We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32', but the chances are that the vast majority of potential win32 users would not visit the site to answer that until it became widely know that we do support win32, by which time of course it's all a bit moot. Unless of course, you have other stats that prove that win32 support is uninteresting to most people and potential users? Regards, Dave. I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser quality, or otherwise inferior? Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) always worse perfomance when we emulate something... and using Cygwin we are emulating U*nix... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser quality, or otherwise inferior? Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) always worse perfomance when we emulate something... and using Cygwin we are emulating U*nix... Absolutely. The DB throughput available to our application with postgresql under cygwin is about 1/3 of what we get under Linux with a similar spec machine/config. That, and, more importantly, the odd spurious cygipc lock up, precludes our use of postgresql/cygwin in a production setting. And not having postgresql available on all our target platforms (which includes Windows) precludes the use of it at all, as we desire a single DB solution. I don't imagine we are the only ones in this situation (and to all those who see a Windows port as uninteresting, please keep this in mind). Hopefully, we can change this situation soon... Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see a href=http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html;http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html/a ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Claudio Natoli wrote: I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser quality, or otherwise inferior? Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) always worse perfomance when we emulate something... and using Cygwin we are emulating U*nix... Absolutely. The DB throughput available to our application with postgresql under cygwin is about 1/3 of what we get under Linux with a similar spec machine/config. That, and, more importantly, the odd spurious cygipc lock up, precludes our use of postgresql/cygwin in a production setting. And not having postgresql available on all our target platforms (which includes Windows) precludes the use of it at all, as we desire a single DB solution. I don't imagine we are the only ones in this situation (and to all those who see a Windows port as uninteresting, please keep this in mind). You are far from alone. And there's one other factor: most large enterprises have quite strict policies about what can be installed on their data center servers. Getting Cygwin past those policies would often be difficult. That factor alone was enough to make my product manager rule Postgres out as a solution that we would bundle with our software. Hopefully, we can change this situation soon... Right. Here's the situation as I see it: . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port . this is important to some people and not important to others . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work has been done, and more is being done Isn't it time to move on? As for release numbering, ISTM that is not fundamentally very important. At my former company we had code names for branches and decided release names/numbers near release time in accordance with marketing requirements. Let's not get hung up on nominalism. A release number is just a tag and we can call it whatever seems good at the time. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Uz.ytkownik Andrew Dunstan napisa?: Claudio Natoli wrote: As for release numbering, ISTM that is not fundamentally very important. At my former company we had code names for branches and decided release names/numbers near release time in accordance with marketing requirements. Let's not get hung up on nominalism. A release number is just a tag and we can call it whatever seems good at the time. Maybe it's a good time to think about PostgreSQL's marketing strategy identity. Maybe this great DBMS should be changed in all areas - not only in technical related fields ? ML ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Le Mardi 18 Novembre 2003 06:21, Greg Stark a écrit : Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's useful. Dear Greg, In your opinion, why did MySQL capture so many users quickly? Is it because MySQL offers a nice and powerful solution? No, on the converse, everyone knows that MySQL is not a reliable database. To some extent, MySQL is not really ACID compliant. It cannot parse large queries with LEFT and RIGHT joins. It does not offer reliable ODBC. And it does not evolve very quickly. it does not support Unicode. There are no server-side languages. etc... So why did MySQL succeed? In my opinion, because Php and MySQL were both available on Apache servers (GNU/Linux) and on home stations (Win32). Simple as that. This kind of cross-needs-effect is called a ***portfolio effect***. The portfolio effect is the ***central marketing strategy*** of Microsoft when releasing OS and Office suites together. Because your Grand-mother owns a Win 95 station, she sends you files under PowerPoint 95, in turn you invest in Office 2000 and send Excel 2000 files to your brother, who in turn invests in Office XP and prints Word XP documents. [---Future readers in 200 years: all these names used tp be trademarks from Microsoft in a time when a few people tried to lock-up ideas.--]. And you end up with everyone upgrading Office and Windows. Now, without being pretentious, I would like to remind this simple idea: ***Who lives by the sward, dies by the sward*** If we apply the same strategy as Microsoft or MySQL, PostgreSQL can conquer the whole market. Not 1% like today, but 60% or more like Apache. Because we are a community. If you do not believe reaching 60% of market shares is possible, let us assume that a PostgreSQL Win32 native port is available in 6 months. Immediately, the following bundles would appear: - PostgreSQL + PhpPgAdmin + pgAdmin - a potential of 1 million users - Apache2.0 + Php5 + PostgreSQL - a potential of 5 million users - OpenOffice + PostgreSQL - a potential of 10 million users - Some MS Access replacement - a potential of 2 million users - there are many others... For me, this makes 60% of the market at least. A 1% to 60% is not a small difference, it is a real gap. Best regards, Jean-Michel ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Claudio Natoli wrote: Claudio Natoli wrote nothing of the sort :-P --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see a href=http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html;http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html/a ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Here's the situation as I see it: . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port . this is important to some people and not important to others . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work has been done, and more is being done Isn't it time to move on? No arguments here. As soon as the fork/exec changes are in place, count me in! Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from core can indicate how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this. Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see a href=http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html;http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html/a ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Uz.ytkownik Jean-Michel POURE napisa?: For me, this makes 60% of the market at least. A 1% to 60% is not a small difference, it is a real gap. Don't forget that success isn't always connected with technical things (very good example is MySQL :-)) - PostgreSQL needs a good marketing, clear strategy and identity. But for sure Win32 port will be a huge step. There are other databases which have Win32 native version and aren't so popular (like Firebird...)... So my proposition to PostgreSQL's team is to think also about SMI - Strategy Marketing Identity... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Claudio Natoli wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Here's the situation as I see it: . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port . this is important to some people and not important to others . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work has been done, and more is being done Isn't it time to move on? No arguments here. As soon as the fork/exec changes are in place, count me in! It doesn't matter really --- I am working on the win32 port, and will make sure it is done and I will make sure it is done so it doesn't uglify our code. Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from core can indicate how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this. http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Bruce Momjian wrote: Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from core can indicate how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this. http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html No, sorry, I should have been clearer. Here I was referring specifically to the fork/exec parts, not the entire porting effort. [I remembered a post of yours of a few weeks ago, mentioning that the fork/exec bits might be in in a few weeks; something along the lines of that it was taking you a while not due to issues, but simply a lack of time (can't find the exact message; might be mis-remembering)] Probably something you are close to completing, but if not, and you can describe how you'd prefer any rearrangement, I'm happy taking this one. Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see a href=http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html;http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html/a ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Claudio Natoli wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: Speaking of which, any ETA on this? Bruce? If anyone from core can indicate how they'd like this architected (from the perspective of code rearrangement), I'm willing to have a crack at this. http://momjian.postgresql.org/main/writings/pgsql/win32.html No, sorry, I should have been clearer. Here I was referring specifically to the fork/exec parts, not the entire porting effort. [I remembered a post of yours of a few weeks ago, mentioning that the fork/exec bits might be in in a few weeks; something along the lines of that it was taking you a while not due to issues, but simply a lack of time (can't find the exact message; might be mis-remembering)] Probably something you are close to completing, but if not, and you can describe how you'd prefer any rearrangement, I'm happy taking this one. I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the child run those same routines. I can show you examples of what I have done and walk you through areas that need work. If you look at the EXEC_BACKEND defines in CVS, you can see what I have done so far. We need to have EXEC_BACKEND working on Unix first, then we can add the CreateProcess call on Win32, so all this can be done on Unix first. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Bruce Momjian wrote: I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the child run those same routines. I can show you examples of what I have done and walk you through areas that need work. If you look at the EXEC_BACKEND defines in CVS, you can see what I have done so far. We need to have EXEC_BACKEND working on Unix first, then we can add the CreateProcess call on Win32, so all this can be done on Unix first. How is EXEC_BACKEND going to be enabled? A configure option? A global define? cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
--- Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which feature is requested more than that? Not sure how often features are requested and by whom. However, if you take a look at the TODO list, you'll find plenty of stuff more important than win32 port. Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be important: SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...) DB/2 Oracle MySQL Sybase Informix Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same. They may claim that they have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick than a useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users. IMHO, core postgreSql development should not be sacrificed for the sake of win32 port. __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote: Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product (a remote replication solution for PocketPC applications), Windows is the first class citizen for the database and Unix is definitely second class (can attest to that from first hand experience). We had trouble convincing them that we wanted to run with Postgres as the data repository under Unix. A native win32 port would have helped us out. -rocco ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
ow wrote: Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same. Then you need to get out more. I have seen Oracle, Sybase, DB2 (and probably Informix, I forget) all running on Windows in a number of large enterprise data centers. They may claim that they have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick than a useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users. IMHO, core postgreSql development should not be sacrificed for the sake of win32 port. Nobody is sacrificing anything. As usual, people are working on the things that they want to work on. A Win32 port is clearly not important *to*you*. It is to others, and it's going to happen. You might dislike the decision but you need to get over it. If you feel other things are more important feel free to contribute to that work. I am sure the core team will make sure that the Win32 work does not break or degrade the product on Unix, so why the heck should you even care? I'm not a big Windows fan either, but I also live in the real world. I suspect that goes for most of us who want to see this work done. I still don't know why we are even having this discussion. andrew ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
--- Rocco Altier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, ow wrote: Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I can't speak for Oracle, but Sybase on Windows is definitely a real thing. If you have to deal with developing for their iAnywhere product iAnywhere is a completely separate product and is *not* a port of Sybase ASE (core db server). IIRC, iAnywhere runs only on Windows, well, maybe they ported it to Linux by now. __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 08:39:29AM -0800, ow wrote: Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. I _have_ certainly seen plenty of people running Oracle on Windows. They weren't necessarily happy, of course, but people do it all the time. As for Sybase, you don't see that because Sybase on Windows was, for a long time, SQL Server. I do not have any real personal jones to get Postgres on Windows, but that does not make it any less valuable to those who want it, and are apparently doing the work to provide it. From my point of view, we should just encourage the project that is already in motion. A -- Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street Afilias CanadaToronto, Ontario Canada [EMAIL PROTECTED] M2P 2A8 +1 416 646 3304 x110 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Marek, Maybe it's a good time to think about PostgreSQL's marketing strategy identity. Maybe this great DBMS should be changed in all areas - not only in technical related fields ? If your interest is marketing PostgreSQL, please join the Advocacy list. That goes for anyone on this list who is interested in PostgreSQL Advocacy from whatever perspective, including if you want us to stop doing it. It's an open list ... come join! -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ow) wrote:
Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows.
I haven't seen Sybase on Windows (only barely have seen it anywhere,
fitting with the comment made that it hides in the lucrative financial
industry); I _have_ seen Oracle deployed on Windows NT. (I was once
involved with a deployment on Novell Netware, which is _really_ odd,
as platforms go :-).)
That we don't see these things a lot may mean that we are seeing
somewhat ghettoized areas of the computer industry. I doubt Sybase
'does Windows' terribly much, but just because I don't see it doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('aa454','freenet.carleton.ca').
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or perhaps a better subject title would be, Watching paint dry, but
geekier.
-- Brian Menyuk
---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
-Original Message- From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:39 AM To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? --- Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which feature is requested more than that? Not sure how often features are requested and by whom. However, if you take a look at the TODO list, you'll find plenty of stuff more important than win32 port. Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be important: SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...) DB/2 Oracle MySQL Sybase Informix Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same. They may claim that they have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick than a useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users. I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000 machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1 Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5 MySQL 4.0.12 Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0 Informix Dynamic Server 9.2 (Also SapDB, Firebird server, SQL*Server, and several others that are not running right now) I just use them for development on this machine, but we have literally thousands of customers with those database systems installed on Win32 and used in production. IMHO, core PostgreSQL development should not be sacrificed for the sake of win32 port. A typical window-phobic. Thankfully, cooler heads will prevail. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
--- Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000 machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1 Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5 MySQL 4.0.12 Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0 Informix Dynamic Server 9.2 (Also SapDB, Firebird server, SQL*Server, and several others that are not running right now) I'd say your environment is somewhat unique. A typical window-phobic. Not really. I simply think there are more pressing issues than win32 port. Peace __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
-Original Message- From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 11:23 AM To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? --- Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000 machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1 Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5 MySQL 4.0.12 Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0 Informix Dynamic Server 9.2 (Also SapDB, Firebird server, SQL*Server, and several others that are not running right now) I'd say your environment is somewhat unique. No argument there. A typical window-phobic. Not really. I simply think there are more pressing issues than win32 port. Peace I suppose I get rabid about it because I will benefit in a stupendous way when it becomes available. Hence, I see that area of development from different colored lenses than you do. ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: I am ready to work with anyone to make fork/exec happen. It requires we find out what globals are being set by the postmaster, and have the child run those same routines. I can show you examples of what I have done and walk you through areas that need work. If you look at the EXEC_BACKEND defines in CVS, you can see what I have done so far. We need to have EXEC_BACKEND working on Unix first, then we can add the CreateProcess call on Win32, so all this can be done on Unix first. How is EXEC_BACKEND going to be enabled? A configure option? A global define? We will use it for testing to make sure Unix can work with exec(), then we add CreateProcess and make EXEC_BACKEND defined for that platform. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000 machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1 Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5 MySQL 4.0.12 Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0 Informix Dynamic Server 9.2 (Also SapDB, Firebird server, SQL*Server, and several others that are not running right now) I suppose I get rabid about it because I will benefit in a stupendous way when it becomes available. Hence, I see that area of development from different colored lenses than you do. My rhetoric kind of got out of hand, but in fact I'm sure a win32 port would be useful. And I'm sure there are particular people for whom it would be very useful. But my point was that it doesn't really change the nature of what you can or can't do with Postgres. If you want to run Postgres it just means you have to set up a Linux or BSD box first and then you get the same feature set as you will when the port is done. Having a win32 port just means it's more convenient. Whereas PITR makes the difference between being able to meet some technical requirements or not. Most importantly, it makes the difference between being fully 24x7 capable and not. By way of illustration, *all* of the above listed databases (with the exception of MySQL of course) had hot backups and PITR *long* before they had windows ports. In any case I regret trolling. Mea Culpa. The whole discussion is pointless. This isn't how free software advances. Developers will work on what captures their fancy and the users don't get to vote unless they pay the bills or contribute the code themselves. :) -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems certain that the next release, in 6-9 months, will have at a minimum the Windows port and ARC, if not Slony-I as well. Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? It seems a little premature to speculate on what features may or may not be present in 6 to 9 months time. Why make this decision now, when we don't even know what will be in the next release, rather than at the end of the development cycle? -Neil ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Josh Berkus writes: Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to have to come up with better reasons. Also note that most major number changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move happening. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Hello, If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be appropriate. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: Folks, Of course, while I was editing press releases at 2am, I started thinking about our next version. It seems certain that the next release, in 6-9 months, will have at a minimum the Windows port and ARC, if not Slony-I as well. Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0?Seems like even 7.4 is hardly recognizable as the same database as 7.0. I'm posting this to both Advocacy and Hackers because I think that some people will have rather different points of view on the issue. But I wanted to start a discussion early this time. No flamewars, please! We all want PostgreSQL to be the best possible database. -- Co-Founder Command Prompt, Inc. The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
As has been said before, many people think that a Windows port is the least interesting feature ever to happen to PostgreSQL, so you're going to Yes but these are people running Unix/Linux/BSD not Windows ;) have to come up with better reasons. Also note that most major number changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move happening. -- Co-Founder Command Prompt, Inc. The wheel's spinning but the hamster's dead ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: Given all that, don't people think it's time to jump to 8.0? Seems like even 7.4 is hardly recognizable as the same database as 7.0. Discussion like this tends to be more for just before beta, once we have an idea what actually made it in :) You be putting the cart before the horse, eh? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Hello, If Win32 actually makes it into 7.5 then yes I believe 8.0 would be appropriate. It might be interesting to track Oracle's version number viz. its feature list. IOW, a PostgreSQL 8.0 database would be feature equivalent to an Oracle 8.0 database. That would mean: 1) PITR 2) Distributed Tx 3) Replication 4) Nested Tx 5) PL/SQL Exception Handling IMHO, a major version number jump should at least match the delta in features one finds in the commercial segment with their major version number bumps. Otherwise, I suspect it would be viewed as window dressing... Could be wrong, though... Mike Mascari [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Josh Berkus wrote: Also note that most major number changes in the past weren't because the features were cool, but because the project has moved to a new phase. I don't see any such move happening. Now that is interesting. I missed that. Can you explain how that worked with 7.0? We stopped crashing in 7.0, or was it 6.5 --- that was our milestone, I think. :-) -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Mike Mascari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1) PITR 2) Distributed Tx 3) Replication 4) Nested Tx 5) PL/SQL Exception Handling Of these PITR seems *by far* the most important. It makes the difference between an enterprise-class database capable of running 24x7 with disaster recovery plans, and a lesser beast that needs to be shut down for cold backups periodically. Features like Nested Transactions and Exception Handling are would be nice features. Especially for pre-existing code-bases. But for new projects they're not things that make the difference between measuring up and not. Besides, Oracle 8 had Replication the way Mysql has transactions... It a recently bolted-on addition that only worked in limited cases until a few rewrites later. Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's useful. -- greg ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's useful. I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the world's servers (or whatever it is) just another port. It could conveivably double Postgres's target audience, could attract heaps of new users, new developers, new companies and put us in a better position to compete with MySQL. I think it's actually a necessary port to keep the project alive in the long term. Chris ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: Oh, and yeah, a win32 port. Yay, another OS port. Postgres runs on dozens of OSes already. What's so exciting about one more? Even if it is a pathologically hard OS to port to. Just because it was hard doesn't mean it's useful. I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the world's servers (or whatever it is) just another port. It could conveivably double Postgres's target audience, could attract heaps of new users, new developers, new companies and put us in a better position to compete with MySQL. I think it's actually a necessary port to keep the project alive in the long term. Absolutely! In addition, even if you don't consider win32 a platform to run production databases on, the win32 port will help developers who work from windows boxes, which is the certainly the most widely used desktop environment. My former company would have loved the win32 port for exactly this reason, even though most of our servers were FreeBSD / Linux. ---(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: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Matthew T. O'Connor writes: Absolutely! In addition, even if you don't consider win32 a platform to run production databases on, the win32 port will help developers who work from windows boxes, which is the certainly the most widely used desktop environment. At the risk of stating the obvious: Cygwin is your friend in exactly this case. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Matthew T. O'Connor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the world's servers (or whatever it is) just another port. It could conveivably double Postgres's target audience, could attract heaps of new users, new developers, new companies and put us in a better position to compete with MySQL. That's a misleading extrapolation. If people wanted to run an open source database they could just as easily run a Solaris, Linux, or BSD server to run it on anyways. I assure you 40% of the worlds servers will not switch from MSSQL to Postgres the day the win32 port comes out... The reality is it just doesn't happen that way. Postgres isn't the first major unixy software to get ported to windows. Emacs, Gcc, Mozilla, Gimp, even X all have windows ports. And they're not dead ports either, they have significant user-bases. But they don't make much of a dent compared to the much larger entrenched Unix user-base and they don't change the nature of the development much. Absolutely! In addition, even if you don't consider win32 a platform to run production databases on, the win32 port will help developers who work from windows boxes, which is the certainly the most widely used desktop environment. My former company would have loved the win32 port for exactly this reason, even though most of our servers were FreeBSD / Linux. Oh sure, it'll be useful. But it doesn't make the difference between different classes of software. It'll still the same Postgres with the same set of things it's capable of handling once you get it running. If you need 24x7, scalability to n terabytes or x transactions/s, guaranteed data integrity in the face of various failures, none of the checklist items you'll be looking for will be win32 support. PITR will probably be a factor in meeting any of those requirements. In any case, my post was mostly a troll, there's not really much point in arguing with it. They're all useful features and I hope they're all in the next version of postgres, whatever version number it's given :) -- greg ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
-Original Message- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:04 PM To: Matthew T. O'Connor Cc: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Matthew T. O'Connor writes: Absolutely! In addition, even if you don't consider win32 a platform to run production databases on, the win32 port will help developers who work from windows boxes, which is the certainly the most widely used desktop environment. At the risk of stating the obvious: Cygwin is your friend in exactly this case. Yes, but how friendly is it? Cygwin requires a license for commercial use. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
-Original Message- From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:34 PM To: Dann Corbit Cc: Matthew T. O'Connor; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark; PostgreSQL Development Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Dann Corbit writes: At the risk of stating the obvious: Cygwin is your friend in exactly this case. Yes, but how friendly is it? What are you asking here? Is it easy to install and use? Yes. You brought it up. Cygwin requires a license for commercial use. No, it does not. Really? What's this then? http://www.cygwin.com/licensing.html http://www.redhat.com/software/cygwin/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
--- Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the world's servers (or whatever it is) just another port. Statistics is a tricky thing. IMHO, there are plenty of things that are much more important than win32 port. __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
-Original Message- From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:39 PM To: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? --- Christopher Kings-Lynne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like 40% of the world's servers (or whatever it is) just another port. Statistics is a tricky thing. IMHO, there are plenty of things that are much more important than win32 port. Which feature is requested more than that? If you consider the possibility of embedded PostgreSQL, which OS covers the most desktops in the world, by several orders of magnitude? Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be important: SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...) DB/2 Oracle MySQL Sybase Informix (Answer: none of them) Maybe they were all mistaken. At the company where I work (CONNX Solutions Inc.) we spent a giant pile of money writing a native port of PostgreSQL 7.1.3 because there were no viable alternatives for what we wanted to do. We would have saved many tens of thousands of dollars if one were available. Now, I imagine other companies might also have their interest piqued if a native port should suddenly appear. ---(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
