Merlin Moncure wrote:
>>Once postgres is available on windows machines I think it will used in
>>
>>
>a
>
>
>>multitude of applications - some of which are directed towards single
>>user situations. With the utmost respect I feel postgres needs to run
>>without issues of the kind presently being presented.
>>
>>
>
>On this point I agree with you 100%. PostgreSQL has some features which
>make it ideal for packaging with an application. I used to work for a
>company that wrote GIS software which had heavy data requirements. At
>the time, tho, there was no viable win32 option, now there is.
>
>IMO, app + database installations should not install the full server.
>The application should open a pipe to postgres.exe. (the app could be
>installed with a pre-bootstrapped database). The problem of course is
>that means losing the libpq library. Thus, the long term solution is to
>have libpq/odbc/jdbc interface wrapper access to a standalone backend.
>These don't exist right now, but perhaps they might one day. In the
>mean time, we all have to work around this :(
>
>Merlin
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
Agreed, while it would be very nice not to have to install the full
server with a small single user app, a production state postgresql for
windows is really needed, I have been using the beta for months now
since way before pg_ctl was even working (i wrote a small c# app to stop
and start postmaster and it into the background with no console window),
the port has been coming along at such an awesome rate. All of you guys
are doing an awesome job, and this will really change the face of
windows sql development. Cos imo postgresql is the best sql database.
