

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us] 
> Sent: 17 September 2002 06:36
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne
> Cc: Robert Treat; Justin Clift; Peter Eisentraut; Tom Lane; 
> Curt Sampson; PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
> 
>
> Well, let's see if we ever run on native NT4.X and we can 
> decide then. 
> Actually, don't our Cygnus folks have a problem with moving 
> pg_xlog already?

No, because Cygwin knows about shell links.

Whilst I'm here, I'll chuck my $0.02 in:

I use PostgreSQL on Linux for production and XP for development, and am
likely to continue that way. I've been beta testing the native Win32
port of PostgreSQL as Justin has and the latest version is fantastic -
it runs as a service, osdb shows impressive results compared to Cygwin
PostgreSQL on the same system and it's a breeze to install, despite
there being no installer yet.

What I can't understand is the attitude of some people here. Yes,
Microsoft are evil, but the bottom line is, millions of people use
Windows. Just look at the number of downloads for pgAdmin (shown at
http://www.pgadmin.org/downloads/) - the last stable version has clocked
up over 38,000 downloads, the preview I released just a couple of weeks
ago, 2230 at the time of writing. I know from talking to some of the
users that often people download copies for themselves and their
colleagues, so we can probably assume there are actually 40,000+
PostgreSQL users that use Windows reguarly enough to want pgAdmin. What
happens if you add in the pgAccess/Windows users, Tora, or pgExplorer?
How many of these people would want to run PostgreSQL on Windows as
well?

What about the companies out there that have good sysadmins who want to
use PostgreSQL, but manglement that insist on using Windows?

What about situations where a single server is running SQL Server and
other software (such as a middle tier server - as I have on one box
here), and that other software cannot be changed, but SQL could?

I think that ignoring the huge number of people that use windows because
some of us consider it a Mickey Mouse OS is a particuarly bad strategy
if we want to expand our userbase. Windows is not going anywhere soon,
and like it or not, it *is* getting better and better. Our Windows 2000
(and our Beta3/RC1 .Net test Servers) are rock solid and haven't been
rebooted in months) - we get more hardware faults these days, and those
can occur on our Linux or HP-UX boxes just as easily.

Anyway, enough of my rant :-)

Regards, Dave.


Tue, 17 Sep 2002 08:33:35 +0100
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
> I use PostgreSQL on Linux for production and XP for development, and am
> likely to continue that way. I've been beta testing the native Win32
> port of PostgreSQL as Justin has and the latest version is fantastic -
> it runs as a service, osdb shows impressive results compared to Cygwin
> PostgreSQL on the same system and it's a breeze to install, despite
> there being no installer yet.

>From where do we get this fabled Win32 port?

Chris


Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:04:38 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
> What I can't understand is the attitude of some people here. Yes,
> Microsoft are evil, but the bottom line is, millions of people use
> Windows. Just look at the number of downloads for pgAdmin (shown at
> http://www.pgadmin.org/downloads/) - the last stable version has clocked
> up over 38,000 downloads, the preview I released just a couple of weeks
> ago, 2230 at the time of writing. I know from talking to some of the
> users that often people download copies for themselves and their
> colleagues, so we can probably assume there are actually 40,000+
> PostgreSQL users that use Windows reguarly enough to want pgAdmin. What
> happens if you add in the pgAccess/Windows users, Tora, or pgExplorer?
> How many of these people would want to run PostgreSQL on Windows as
> well?

I actually think that the long-term survival of Postgres DEPENDS on our
Win32 support.  Otherwise, we'll just get massacred by MySQL, MSSQL, Oracle
and Firebird who do support Win32.

Users of Postgres are our lifeblood.  The more users we have the more
developers we get, the more testing we get and the more likely we are to get
money, corporate support, etc.  Our ODBC driver will also be improved.

Chris


Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:11:47 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
On 17 Sep 2002 at 16:11, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:

> > What I can't understand is the attitude of some people here. Yes,
> > Microsoft are evil, but the bottom line is, millions of people use
> > Windows. Just look at the number of downloads for pgAdmin (shown at
> > http://www.pgadmin.org/downloads/) - the last stable version has clocked
> > up over 38,000 downloads, the preview I released just a couple of weeks
> > ago, 2230 at the time of writing. I know from talking to some of the
> > users that often people download copies for themselves and their
> > colleagues, so we can probably assume there are actually 40,000+
> > PostgreSQL users that use Windows reguarly enough to want pgAdmin. What
> > happens if you add in the pgAccess/Windows users, Tora, or pgExplorer?
> > How many of these people would want to run PostgreSQL on Windows as
> > well?
> I actually think that the long-term survival of Postgres DEPENDS on our
> Win32 support.  Otherwise, we'll just get massacred by MySQL, MSSQL, Oracle
> and Firebird who do support Win32.

Let's move this to general.

But I disagree. History says that nobody can compete with microsoft on 
microsoft platform. Postgres will not be competing with either SQL Server or 
access. It would remain as toy database..

As far as people using mysql on windows, I have couple of colleages here who 
got things crowling for some heavy load, something like 60GB database with 
512MB compq workstations..

Let's leave it. The main point to focus postgres on unix is not only because 
unix is proven/known as robust and scalable, but unix is much more standard to 
support across multiple OS. The amount with which windows differs from unices 
on API level, any serious efforts to make postgresql good enough on windows 
whould be a mammoth task.

I haven't tried either port of postgres on windows but I would not bet on any 
of them.

> Users of Postgres are our lifeblood.  The more users we have the more

I agree but even as of now, not even 1% users comes on any of postgres lists, 
in my estimate.

So if users are not providing their feedback, what's the point in open source? 
(Actually all those people do help postgres by publicising it but still 
feedback remains an important phase of open source software engineering..)

> developers we get, the more testing we get and the more likely we are to get
> money, corporate support, etc.  Our ODBC driver will also be improved.

I agree for ODBC but that can be done without giving much to postgresql windows 
port as well.

I understand windows port of postgresql remains very much important for people 
who want to evaluate it. But for some good evaluation, I would rather recommend 
them trying postgresql on linux rather than windows.

There are limits as what postgresql can do on windows and probably postgresql 
development team can't do much about many of them..

No offense to anybody.. just some opinions..

Bye
 Shridhar

--
Albrecht's Law:	Social innovations tend to the level of minimum tolerable well-
being.


Tue, 17 Sep 2002 14:00:15 +0530
"Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
> Let's leave it. The main point to focus postgres on unix is not
> only because
> unix is proven/known as robust and scalable, but unix is much
> more standard to
> support across multiple OS. The amount with which windows differs
> from unices
> on API level, any serious efforts to make postgresql good enough
> on windows
> whould be a mammoth task.

It's already been done - that's the whole point.

> So if users are not providing their feedback, what's the point in
> open source?

Users HAVE provided their feedback - they want Postgres on Windows.  What's
the point of open source if we can't accomodate them?  There's no problems
with economics, marketing, schedules, deadlines, nothing.  The reason that
people like Open Source is because they don't have to deal with some
monolithic company refusing to port to their platform just because it's "too
hard".

Chris


Tue, 17 Sep 2002 16:49:22 +0800
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?