Joel Burton wrote:
> ... and for IT staff who do their play-work on the Windows laptops, and to
> help compete against MySQL, which has a strong, out-of-the-box Windows
> binary, and for people who think it's easier to install and play with things
> on Windows first, and ...
>
> It seems like there are lot of open paths discussions, though:
>
> . make cygwin perform better (does it perform badly? is it unstable?)
I don't know if a native Win32 binary will perform better, I do know that Linux
running PostgreSQL performs better than Windows running cygwin and PostgreSQL
on the same machine. The extent of what that means is unclear.
>
> . make cygwin easier to install
Or just have a stripped down cygwin runtime.
>
> . make windows native (req's semaphore, fork, some shell utils, etc.)
Hence this whole conversation.
>
> I've installed PG+Cygwin on a few dozen machines, but always to let people
> play before the real *nix install. Can anyone speak to _really_ using PG +
> Cygwin?
As I think of it, I don't think a cygwin PostgreSQL will *ever* be taken
seriously by the Windows crowd, just as a Wine/CorelDraw wasn't taken seriously
by the Linux crowd.
If we want to support Windows, we should support Windows. Cygwin will not be
accepted by any serious IT team.
