...
> PostgreSQL's feature set and price ($0), with a good installer, would do VERY
> well.
That may be (I'd like to think so!).
We've identified at least a couple of barriers to folks running
PostgreSQL on Windows. The installer and GUI issue needs to be solved no
matter what, and we *could* have a version running on Windows with just
those things in place.
imho if we are going down the path, we need to take the first steps. And
those do *not* require code rewrites to do so (or at least don't appear
to).
If we had a package available for Windows -- with some developers such
as yourself supporting it -- then we could talk about putting more
resources into supporting that platform better. But the perception of at
least some of the key developers (including myself) is that *if* we did
the code rewrite, and *if* we spent the effort to end up as a native on
Windows, then we *very well might* be an unreliable database on an
unreliable platform.
istm that getting a well packaged system running now, then being able to
identify *only cygwin* as the barrier to better reliability would get
more support for changes in the backend code.
And if we were working toward some ability to do threading anyway (I
don't see that in the near future, but we've talked in the past about
structuring the query engine around "tuple sources" which could then be
distributed across threads or across machines) then maybe the next step
is easier.
My 2c...
- Thomas
