mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> 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
cygwin in there. The above argument is just plain irrelevant. The real
point is that we need a nice clean friendly GUI for both installation
and administration --- and AFAICS that will take about the same amount of
work to write whether the server requires cygwin internally or not.
Rather than expending largely-pointless work on internal rewrites of
the server, people who care about this issue ought to be thinking about
the GUI problems.
> From a production stand point, would anyone reading this trust their
> data to PostgreSQL running on cygwin?
I wouldn't trust my data to *any* database running on a Microsoft OS.
Period. The above argument thus doesn't impress me at all, especially
when it's being made without offering a shred of evidence that cygwin
contributes any major degree of instability.
I am especially unhappy about the prospect of major code revisions
and development time spent on chasing this rather than improving our
performance and stability on Unix-type OSes. I agree with the comment
someone else made: that's just playing Microsoft's game.
regards, tom lane
