"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
> > > I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000
> > > machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1
> > > Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5
> > > MySQL 4.0.12
> > > Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0
> > > Informix Dynamic Server 9.2
> > > (Also SapDB, Firebird server, SQL*Server, and several others that are
> > > not running right now)
>
> I suppose I get rabid about it because I will benefit in a stupendous
> way when it becomes available. Hence, I see that area of development
> from different colored lenses than you do.
My rhetoric kind of got out of hand, but in fact I'm sure a win32 port would
be useful. And I'm sure there are particular people for whom it would be very
useful.
But my point was that it doesn't really change the nature of what you can or
can't do with Postgres. If you want to run Postgres it just means you have to
set up a Linux or BSD box first and then you get the same feature set as you
will when the port is done. Having a win32 port just means it's more
convenient.
Whereas PITR makes the difference between being able to meet some technical
requirements or not. Most importantly, it makes the difference between being
fully 24x7 capable and not.
By way of illustration, *all* of the above listed databases (with the
exception of MySQL of course) had hot backups and PITR *long* before they had
windows ports.
In any case I regret trolling. Mea Culpa. The whole discussion is pointless.
This isn't how free software advances. Developers will work on what captures
their fancy and the users don't get to vote unless they pay the bills or
contribute the code themselves. :)
--
greg
