Jan Wieck writes:> Tom Lane wrote:> > Give me a technical case for avoiding Cygwin, and maybe I can get> > excited
aboutit. I'm not planning to lift a finger on the basis> > of licensing though... after all, Windows users are
accustomedto> > paying for software, no?> Nobody asked you to lift any of your fingers. A few people>
(includingme) just see value in a native Windows port,> kicking out the Cygwin requirement.> I have the
impressionyou never did use Cygwin. I did, thanks> but no thanks.
I think the crux of the the problem is that a native Windows port
would require a LOT of changes in the source (switching over to API
wrappers, adding compatibility layers). Obviously this has the
possibility of introducing a lot of bugs with zero gain for the folk
who are already happily running PostgreSQL on UNIX-like systems. And
what of performance?
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 interface...?
Lee.
