
> > 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>

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:26:19 +1100
Claudio Natoli <claudio.natoli@memetrics.com>
Re: [HACKERS] 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


Tue, 18 Nov 2003 07:54:57 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: [HACKERS] 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


 

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:00:19 +0100
Marek Lewczuk <newsy@lewczuk.com>
Re: [HACKERS] 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

Tue, 18 Nov 2003 09:15:48 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?