Christopher Browne wrote:
If fixing PostgreSQL to work on Win32 caused a whole lot of
breakage on the Unix side, that would _not_ be a win. It might
do well on Win32, but breakage could lead to a LOSS of interest
on Unix, as people decided to take the point of view that the
developers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
we should write a real Win32 version.
The crucial wrong word is the word we.
If _you_ want a Windows
I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting opinions,
that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then we should
write a real Win32 version.
The crucial wrong word is the word we.
If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real Win32
version. That
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting opinions,
that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then we should
write a real Win32 version.
The crucial wrong word is the word we.
If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should
Le Jeudi 9 Mai 2002 16:55, mlw a écrit :
Can a cygwin version of PostgreSQL see the native file system, like: C:\My
Database, D:\postgres?
You have the choice to keep Windows or Unix paths. Both are supported.
/Jean-Michel POURE
---(end of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
we should write a real Win32 version.
The crucial wrong word is the word we.
If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 19:23, mlw wrote:
Lee Kindness wrote:
Sure It'd be nice to have a native PostgreSQL on XP Server (I don't
see the point in consumer level Microsoft OSs) but how high is the
demand? What's the prize? What are the current limitations - fork,
semaphores, ugly
On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have used the cygwin version too. It is a waste of time. No Windows user will
ever accept it. No windows-only user is going to use the cygwin tools.
With decent packaging, no windows-only user would even know we
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
mlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have used the cygwin version too. It is a waste of time. No Windows
user will
ever accept it. No windows-only user is going to use the cygwin tools.
With decent packaging, no windows-only user would even know we have
