-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
running
those should know better than to use Windows, and if they do not,
I'll
be happy to tell them so.
You know, it makes you wonder.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks running
those should know better than to use Windows, and if they do not, I'll
be happy to tell them so.
You know, it makes you wonder.
Tom Lane wrote:
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
running those should know
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
running those should know better than to use
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX
flavors
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig
: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX
flavors
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases
Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:39 AM
To: Tom Lane
Cc: Dann Corbit; Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Momjian; Greg
We should provide people with the right tools, true, but we
are bound by our conscience to inform them about Windows' failures.
It must be nice to be young and still see everything as black and white
with no shades of gray.
I wouldn't call 41 very young.
For those who think that Windows
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 2:41 PM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
[snip]
Microsoft has harmed the computing industry
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We should provide people with the right tools, true, but we
are bound by our conscience to inform them about Windows' failures.
It must be nice to be young and still see everything as black and white
with no shades of gray.
I wouldn't call 41 very young.
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I am not a wide eyed passionate Linux zealot. Like my support
for John Kerry, I gladly choose the better side of mediocrity over extream
evil, it is nothing more than pure practicality.
I don't like dubya either, but he isn't extreme evil. This sort of
Having been a Windows developer since version 1.03, with DOS
and CP/M before that, I can say with complete authority that
most Windows developers are not good. The worst I've seen
is Charles Petzold, and he sets the bar.
Charles Petzold is a decent programmer. I have read his books and he
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
Agreed, but are we going to support non-tablespace installs? I wasn't
sure that was an option.
A setup containing only the default tablespace cannot use any
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I think Win2000 or XP would be a reasonable
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular feature.
Even Windows
supports what would be needed. Second of all, PostgreSQL
will still
run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
PostgreSQL will still run
Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
running those should know better than to use
On Friday 05 March 2004 07:51, Thomas Swan wrote:
Apparently, I have failed tremendously in addressing a concern. The
question is does PostgreSQL need to rely on symlinks and will that
dependency introduce problems?
There is an active win32 port underway (see this mailing list). One
First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular feature. Even Windows
supports what would be needed. Second of all, PostgreSQL will still
run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
PostgreSQL will still run. Since we are all using PostgreSQL without
My idea for
Thomas Swan wrote:
The fact of the matter is that PostgreSQL runs better on some
platforms than others, and it probably always will. Heck, as of
today, PostgreSQL is officially supported on the Gamecube. Does that
mean that the PostgreSQL developers should limit themselves to the
features
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular feature. Even Windows
supports what would be needed. Second of all, PostgreSQL will still
run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
PostgreSQL will still run. Since we are all using
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Thomas Swan wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
Quoting Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
My idea for platforms that don't support symlinks would be to simply
create
a tblspaceoid directory inplace instead of the symlink (maybe throw a
warning).
My feeling is, that using the same syntax on such platforms
Thomas Swan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Apparently, I have failed tremendously in addressing a concern. The
question is does PostgreSQL need to rely on symlinks and will that
dependency introduce problems?
There is an active win32 port underway (see this
[ lots of opinions about depending on symlinks for tablespaces ]
One thing that I think hasn't been noted in this thread is that our
initial implementation won't bind us forever. If it becomes clear that
a symlink-based implementation has real problems, we can change it.
But if we spend extra
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I think Win2000 or XP would be a reasonable
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I think Win2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I think Win2000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS
Gavin Sherry wrote:
I'm going to focus on implementing this on the system(s) I'm used to
developing on (ie, those which support symlinks). Once that is done, I'll
talk with the Win32 guys about what, if anything, we can do about getting
this to work on Win32 (and possibly other non-symlink
For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
should cache those lookups.
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
Agreed, but are we going to support non-tablespace installs? I wasn't
sure that was an option.
A setup containing only the default
Claudio Natoli wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
I just checked from the MinGW console and I see:
[snip]
It accepts ln -s, but does nothing with it.
And even if it had worked, it wouldn't really matter, since we don't
actually want to *run* the system under MinGW/msys, just build it.
I
I just checked from the MinGW console and I see:
[snip]
It accepts ln -s, but does nothing with it.
And even if it had worked, it wouldn't really matter, since
we don't
actually want to *run* the system under MinGW/msys, just build it.
I think the idea of implementing in
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I think Win2000 or XP would be a reasonable
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I don't think we could use this s/w though, unless the author is
prepared to relicense it. I'm sure implementing a clean room version of
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I don't think we could use this s/w though, unless the author is
prepared to relicense it. I'm sure implementing a clean room
version of
the relevant parts
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
should cache those lookups.
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
should cache those lookups.
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
should cache those lookups.
My feeling is that we need not support
41 matches
Mail list logo
