Tom Lane wrote:
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to find out.
> Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a
> Unix variant.
>
> Partly this is a matter of wanting to protect Postgres' reputation.
> Just on sheer numbers, if there is a native Windows port then there are
> likely to be huge numbers of people using Postgres on Windows. If
> that's not going to be a reliable combination, we need to know it and
> tell them so up-front. Otherwise, people will be blaming Postgres, not
> Windows, when they lose data. It's an entirely different situation from
> whether Postgres-on-Joe-Blow's-Unix-Variant loses data, first because of
> visibility, and second because of the different user base. Am I being
> paranoid to suspect that the average Postgres-on-Windows user will be
> less clueful than the average Postgres-on-Unix user? I don't think so.
Assuming all your assumptions are right, why the hell is Oracle's and MS
SQL-Server's reputation that bloody good? And what about MySQL? They all
have a native Windows (sup)port for some time ... didn't harm their
reputation. I think that we got in bed with this ugly Cybill ... er ...
Cygwin thing had cost us more reputation than the sucking performance of
pre-7 releases all together.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
