Thread: PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Tope Akinniyi wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
> displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask,
> are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?


I believe that there is a lot of encouragement of the use of PostgreSQL
on Windows. However I also believe that the
encouragement is two sided. It is great to get windows people to run
PostgreSQL. It is better to get them to run PostgreSQL
on Windows and then realize that Linux is that much better as a platform
for PostgreSQL. It should also be noted
that FreeBSD would also be a good choice.

>
> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
> for Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being
> done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to
> them except the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this,
> no that.

Actually Command Prompt is about to release Mammoth Replicator 1.4 for
Win32. It would have been out last week but
our release manager (me) has been very ill. Also remember that Open
Source people in general don't like Windows. Which
is why you won't see a lot of projects for Windows.

> I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support
> provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.

Well yes initially it was. However Mammoth PostgreSQL and Mammoth
Replicator for Win32 will come with plPHP preinstalled
for Win32.


> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
> users.  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need
> them.


And? Firebird was originall a dos and the windows product. It didn't
move to Linux/Unix until later in life.

>
> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the
> devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and
> must not be shown to be deficient.

Patience is a virtue. The Windows version of PostgreSQL is still very
young. You have to give it time to get its feet underneat it.


>
> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a
> massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows
> game too far.

It isn't a Linux-Windows game. It is the better platform game. It
doesn't matter if it is Linux, Solaris or FreeBSD. Any one of these
three is exponentially better than windows as a PostgreSQL database server.

This may not be the case in 3 years but for now it is.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>
> Thanks.
>
>
> -------
> Best regards,
>
> Tope Akinniyi
> *CEO
> /ShepherdHill Software/*
> Lagos, Nigeria
>
> *Do not forget:* /_Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life._/
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 03:24 +0000, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
> displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask,
> are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
>
> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
> for Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being
> done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to
> them except the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this,
> no that.
>
> I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support
> provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
>
> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
> users.  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need
> them.
>
> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the
> devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and
> must not be shown to be deficient.
>
> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a
> massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows
> game too far.
>
> Thanks.
>

It's about supply and demand. If enough people demand these tools to
work in windows, they will make it so. Often times, these projects are
started for various reasons and *nix has been the standard platform for
years. Windows is new to the game..and it'll take a while for these
tools to be *migrated* to the windows world.

It's not an evil conspiracy against windows..just like Linux users can
point out that there not enough games for windows yet. The demand isn't
high enough yet and as it increases..this will hopefully change a bit.

-Robby

--
/***************************************
* Robby Russell | Owner.Developer.Geek
* PLANET ARGON  | www.planetargon.com
* Portland, OR  | robby@planetargon.com
* 503.351.4730  | blog.planetargon.com
* PHP-PostgreSQL Hosting & Development
* open source solutions - web hosting
****************************************/

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 03:24:05AM +0000, Tope Akinniyi wrote:

> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
> displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I
> ask, are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?

I don't see the "extreme Linux mentality" you mention, and in any
case maybe you mean "Unix mentality," where "Unix" refers to a class
of operating systems that includes but isn't limited to Linux.
Subjects like "PostgreSQL still for Linux only?" are (mis)leading
because PostgreSQL runs perfectly well on other Unix-like systems
such as FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, and many others, to judge
from directories like src/template in the source code.  Linux is
popular, but it's NOT the only Unix-like operating system around.
Unfortunately the public is coming to equate the two, with the word
"Unix" often prompting the question, "You mean Linux?"

I will concede that a lot of tools in general tend to be written
for Linux, sometimes without regard to whether they'll work even
on other Unix-like operating systems.  But the PostgreSQL project
itself appears to care about portability, so the question "Still
for Linux only?" should really be directed at the third-party
software that some people find useful.

--
Michael Fuhr
http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/

Tope Akinniyi <topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to
carrythe Linux-Windows game too far. 

This is a troll, isn't it?

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

>Tope Akinniyi <topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>
>>I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to
carrythe Linux-Windows game too far. 
>>
>>
>
>This is a troll, isn't it?
>
>
I don't know, the email was fairly thought out. I think it may have sounded
a little off because it is from a non-native english speaker. Of course
I could have just taken the bait :)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>            regards, tom lane
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
>
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
> by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
> encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
>
> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
> Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being done to
> encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to them except
> the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this, no that.

To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.

I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put code
like:

if os="win" {
    errormessage("this software is not ported to windows yet");
    exit(99);
}

into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to run
it on windows.

> I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
> responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
>
> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users.
>  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.

Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years ago.

> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is
> not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
> shown to be deficient.

The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
see that "their" OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and is
back where he was a month ago.

> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
> re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
> far.

It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a mouse
attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.

    UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC    2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone:  +1 650 872 2425        San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell:   +1 650 302 2405        United States
Fax:    +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCLoAijqGXBvRToM4RAu4ZAJ9Ed1kgGzNaFmVCgJSfZS1kAkm9HACfZ5bI
rSX4FvU1RxHR63sg6icE+gU=
=+NPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase?  If so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).

Edwin New.

-----Original Message-----
From: Uwe C. Schroeder [mailto:uwe@oss4u.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:49 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
> by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
> encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
>
> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
> Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being done to
> encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to them except
> the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this, no that.

To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.

I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put code
like:

if os="win" {
    errormessage("this software is not ported to windows yet");
    exit(99);
}

into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to run
it on windows.
 
> I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
> responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
>
> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users.
>  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.

Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years ago.

> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is
> not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
> shown to be deficient.

The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
see that "their" OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and is
back where he was a month ago.

> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
> re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
> far.

It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a mouse
attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.

        UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC   2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone:  +1 650 872 2425         San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell:   +1 650 302 2405         United States
Fax:    +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCLoAijqGXBvRToM4RAu4ZAJ9Ed1kgGzNaFmVCgJSfZS1kAkm9HACfZ5bI
rSX4FvU1RxHR63sg6icE+gU=
=+NPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

Tom Lane wrote:
> Tope Akinniyi <topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a
>> massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the
>> Linux-Windows game too far.
>
> This is a troll, isn't it?

Perhaps it's a 419 :-). But if so I can't see the catch yet - must be
very subtle.

> regards, tom lane


--
-----------------------------------------------
Tim Allen          tim@proximity.com.au
Proximity Pty Ltd  http://www.proximity.com.au/
   http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/rita_tim/

> On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
> > by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
> > encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
> >
> > Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
> > Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being done to
> > encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to them except
> > the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this, no that.
>
> To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
> Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
> is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
> platforms).
> I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
> windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
> of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
> backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.

i think, the win version of postgresql has been a very important step,
i know developers who have taken an interest in postgresql because of
this version, because they first tried it on windows. later on, most
of these developers migrate to linux, but if you are a windows
developer it is important to have the possibility to try it first
without considering using a different platform.

once we built a web application using linux+apache+php+postgresql and
then needed to do a demonstration of the system on the client's
computer, it was really easy to get it to work with
win+iis+php+postgresql.

so, thank you to all the people who has made this possible.

also, i don't like windows, but many developers do, they prefer
windows, or they are forced to use it as a platform for their
applications. so, in many ways continuing with a windows version and
developing tools for windows is very important for the postgresql
community.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thinking about it you may be right. I guess I'm misstaking it for something
else. Too many "foxes" out here nowadays :-)

To the topic: I don't argue the benefit of a native windows version from a
marketing point of view (although not so from a technical point of view). As
long as MS hasn't filed a chapter 11 the rest of the world will have to deal
with them. Therefor a native windows version is possibly the only way to make
postgresql more popular and sneak it into the one or other fortune 500
company.

On Tuesday 08 March 2005 09:02 pm, Edwin New wrote:
> I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase?  If
> so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows
> database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).
>
> Edwin New.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Uwe C. Schroeder [mailto:uwe@oss4u.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:49 PM
> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
> > by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
> > encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
> >
> > Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
> > for Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being done
> > to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to them
> > except the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this, no that.
>
> To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
> Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which
> probably
> is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
> platforms).
> I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if
> your
> windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the
> fault
> of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
> backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.
>
> I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
> customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put
> code
>
> like:
>
> if os="win" {
>     errormessage("this software is not ported to windows yet");
>     exit(99);
> }
>
> into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to
> run
> it on windows.
>
> > I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
> > responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
> >
> > Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
>
> users.
>
> >  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
>
> Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years
> ago.
>
> > Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil
>
> is
>
> > not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
> > shown to be deficient.
>
> The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
> see that "their" OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
> community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a
> question
> of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
> customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
> him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
> guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
> MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
> how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and
> is
> back where he was a month ago.
>
> > I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
> > re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
> > far.
>
> It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
> Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
> and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a
> mouse
>
> attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
> and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
> want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
>
>     UC

- --
    UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC    2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone:  +1 650 872 2425        San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell:   +1 650 302 2405        United States
Fax:    +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCLpKajqGXBvRToM4RAjb7AJ96fllQAqY6g6y3XxBzRi682+BvAgCg0XWx
/a9Y4VNCmPUlZQ+xlj1ZmJw=
=cHVW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Tim Allen <tim@proximity.com.au> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is a troll, isn't it?

> Perhaps it's a 419 :-). But if so I can't see the catch yet - must be
> very subtle.

Nothing very subtle about it.  In the first place, I'm not going to
waste my breath debating anyone who thinks "Linux" == "every Unix-ish
platform".  In the second, I'm not going to waste my breath debating
anyone who thinks that Windows is now, or is likely to soon become, a
reasonable platform to run a production database on.  We are supporting
Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of developers who want to
do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves
feel a need to run Windows on their laptops).  If anyone comes to me and
says "I lost data because I was running PG on Windows", I'm going to say
"you picked the wrong OS" not "you picked the wrong database".

            regards, tom lane

Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
>>by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
>>encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
>>
>>Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all for
>>Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being done to
>>encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to them except
>>the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this, no that.
>
>
> To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
> Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which probably
> is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
> platforms).
> I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if your
> windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the fault
> of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
> backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.
>
> I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
> customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put code
> like:
>
> if os="win" {
>     errormessage("this software is not ported to windows yet");
>     exit(99);
> }
>
> into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to run
> it on windows.
>
>
>>I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
>>responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
>>
>>Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows users.
>> We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
>
>
> Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years ago.
>
>
>>Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil is
>>not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
>>shown to be deficient.
>
>
> The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't
> see that "their" OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
> community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a question
> of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
> customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched
> him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -
> guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and
> MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
> how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and is
> back where he was a month ago.
>
>
>>I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
>>re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
>>far.
>
>
> It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.
> Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
> and it's fairly good on the desktop.

according to billy boy himself,
windows is designed " to make it easier and more entertaining for people
to play video games on thier home computer"*
so not even dektop, it was never meant for professional use.


Never trust a server that needs a mouse
> attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability
> and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
> want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.
>
>     UC
>

*Bill Gates in press conference introducing windows 1.0 to the world.

personally, even the nt family, with the absolute requirement of using
video gaming technology, is not a professional os.

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:02:46 +1100, Edwin New <edwin_new@toll.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase?  If
> so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows
> database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).

"InterBase started on Apollo Domain, a spectacularly wonderful
workstation with terrific networking. The initial release supported
Apollo, Sun, HP/UX, VAX/VMS, Ultrix, and something else that escapes
me. So, if you wonder 'was InterBase originally a Windows/DOS
system?', the answer is 'no'."

From: http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=history&id=ann_2

(This page: http://firebird.sourceforge.net/index.php?op=history&id=ann_1
says also: "InterBase started in the shower." Maybe the "something
else that escapes me" was NetBSD? ;-)

Ian Barwick

Le mardi 08 mars 2005 à 22:17 -0800, J. Greenlees a écrit :

> >>I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed
> >>by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
> >>encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?

I run my development server on Mac OS X.

If a client asks me to provide my product to run with a Windows back end
fine. But I won't be able to provide any support for performance issues
or integration with the OS.

I always thought the Windows version was a commodity for developers
and/or for highly experienced Windows server admins. The kind that never
complains because he knows what he is doing and his Windows servers just
work.

Cheers

Tony

Okay, I'll split them with you.  I remember the Groton Database Corp. of
Groton Connecticut, whose marketing people didn't like the sound of
*Groton*, and renamed the company Interbase and the product InterBase (note
caps).  Ashton Tate came along years later and bought the company to
increase their own salability to Borland.  I bought InterBase from
Interbase Corp. in 1991 for HP-UX.

Rick



                     
                      Edwin New
                     
                      <edwin_new@toll.com.au>        To:       pgsql-general@postgresql.org
                     
                      Sent by:                       cc:
                     
                      pgsql-general-owner@pos        Subject:  Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
                     
                      tgresql.org
                     

                     

                     
                      03/09/2005 12:02 AM
                     

                     

                     




I don't want to split hairs, but wasn't Firebird originally Interbase?  If
so, you'll find it was originally a *nix product before it was a Windows
database (back in the Ashton-Tate days for those with long memories).


Edwin New.


-----Original Message-----
From: Uwe C. Schroeder [mailto:uwe@oss4u.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 March 2005 3:49 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Tuesday 08 March 2005 07:24 pm, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being displayed

> by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are we
> encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
>
> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
for
> Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being done to
> encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to them except
> the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this, no that.


To be honest - I wouldn't encourage the use of PostgreSQL on Win.
Neither would I for any database or data warehouse application (which
probably
is why SAP put onto their website that they prefer linux to windows
platforms).
I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL - if
your
windows box crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely it's not the
fault
of a lousy OS, nor the fault of an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make
backups - it will be this "shitty" free database system that's to blame.


I wrote quite some software that uses postgresql - never would I tell any
customer that he could now run it on windows. As a matter of fact I put
code
like:


if os="win" {
    errormessage("this software is not ported to windows yet");
    exit(99);
}


into the startup routine - just to make it impossible for the customer to
run
it on windows.

> I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
> responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
>
> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
users.
>  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.


Firebird was a DOS ISAM DB. It just made it's way to *nix a couple years
ago.


> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil
is
> not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not be
> shown to be deficient.


The problem is, that it's a question of perception. Most windows fans don't

see that "their" OS is pretty instable. So it's not a question if the
community can do anything to make PostgreSQL look deficient - it's a
question
of what people do with it on Win. I had a similar case recently with a
customer: His MS Office suite crashed at least 3 times a day. So I switched

him to OpenOffice. Now OO crashed once after a month of perfect operation -

guess what, the customer is back to MS Office because OO crashed on him and

MS has this new version that's sooo much better. Call it dumb - but that's
how a lot of people are. Well, he paid a couple $k to get new licenses and
is
back where he was a month ago.


> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive

> re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
> far.


It's just a fact: any unix is a better platform for databases than windows.

Windows was designed (and mostly still is) as a Desktop operating system -
and it's fairly good on the desktop. Never trust a server that needs a
mouse
attached to operate properly. Unix was designed with scalability, stability

and multiuser-operation in mind - and that's what it's good at. I wouldn't
want my payroll on a windows box - much less my company data.


        UC


- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC   2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone:  +1 650 872 2425         San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell:   +1 650 302 2405         United States
Fax:    +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)


iD8DBQFCLoAijqGXBvRToM4RAu4ZAJ9Ed1kgGzNaFmVCgJSfZS1kAkm9HACfZ5bI
rSX4FvU1RxHR63sg6icE+gU=
=+NPW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 21:24, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
> displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask,
> are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
>
> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
> for Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being
> done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to
> them except the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this,
> no that.
>
> I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support
> provider responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.
>
> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
> users.  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need
> them.
>
> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the
> devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and
> must not be shown to be deficient.
>
> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a
> massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows
> game too far.

I think you misunderstand the basic open source model.  People get an
itch, they scratch it.

Right now, there are very few postgresql on windows users, because it is
so new.  There are lots and lots of postgresql on UNIX (not just linux
btw) folks.  So, there are more people scratching itches on unix than on
windows.  As the number of Windows users grows, the number of folks who
feel a need to port things originally written for unix will grow.

At my last company, they brought in a (possibly clinically insane) CIO
who decided that all this Unix stuff was outdated, and hey, it worked at
my subdivision of 20 IT and 200 sales staff at my last company, so it
ought to work here with 300 IT and 200 other folks, right?  So, my buddy
who is unfortunately still stuck there has had to port all of our
internal apps to run on windows, and the port of postgresql to windows
was a great help for him.

He's one of those people we may find scratching an itch some day.  But
it's organic, it happens when it happens.  Who knows, one day one of the
core postgresql developers might be a windows expert.

I'm quite certain that if you see something that doesn't work on
windows, and you do make it work on windows, your patches for that
something will likely be accepted with grace.  But the unix users aren't
going to install windows just to do it for you and the other windows
users.  They have other things to do.  Give it time...

Tom Lane wrote:
> Tope Akinniyi <topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>>I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive re-orientation of the community not to
carrythe Linux-Windows game too far. 
>
>
> This is a troll, isn't it?

My thinking as well, unfortunately, has hooked some folks...

--
Until later, Geoffrey

--- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote:

> > The problem is, that it's a question of
> perception. Most windows fans don't
> > see that "their" OS is pretty instable.

That may have been true in 1995.  However, in this day
and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as
unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are
referring to the non-NT variations.

Regards,

Shelby Cain




__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/

Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this
thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program
in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water
in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places
that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily
than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL
you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn
people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers
who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that
it runs on windows.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

Shelby Cain wrote:

>--- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>The problem is, that it's a question of
>>>
>>>
>>perception. Most windows fans don't
>>
>>
>>>see that "their" OS is pretty instable.
>>>
>>>
>
>That may have been true in 1995.  However, in this day
>and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as
>unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are
>referring to the non-NT variations.
>
>
O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However
there are a couple of things I know.

1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable.
However there is a caveat, it still can not perform
under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux
or other UNIX variants can.

2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and
performs fairly well under load. However it still
can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants.

The majority of the problem with Windows in these
days is people who hire other people with little
pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable.

A properly managed Windows server can be reliable,
can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise
to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference
is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you
feel like you have it when you don't.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake





>Regards,
>
>Shelby Cain
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
>Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:02:10 -0600, Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
>... but the fact is there's still a LOT of places
> that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily
> than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL
> you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn
> people off of PostgreSQL.

Perhaps someone on the list who knows and uses the different operating
systems could set up a lab, to compare PostgreSQL between them.
Perhaps the latest Windows Server, a popular distribution of Linux,
and Mac OS X?

Has this already been done, with regard to performance?

Doug

Ho ho, flame on! :)

My completely annecodal experience with devs which prefer windows over
posix is that the former prods things until they seem to work and accepts
unexplained behavior far more readily than the latter. Do I *really* want
that kind of mentality in my database devs?

Anyway, I think you have the focus wrong. It's not: "run our software on
what we tell you to".... it's more: "we believe this platform is better
than others, so we'll write our free software for that. But if you want to
port it over to the platform of your choice, have fun doing that."

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this
> thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program
> in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water
> in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places
> that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily
> than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL
> you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn
> people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers
> who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that
> it runs on windows.
> --
> Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
> Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
>
> Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
> Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
> FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

I don't think so, if you consider a troll to be someone who doesn't care
about the topic, but rather wishes to stir up newbies and flamers.  A
search of the archives shows the sender has a history of asking valid
questions and offering advice on-topic.

That said, the result is the same.

Cheers,

Rick



                     
                      Geoffrey
                     
                      <esoteric@3times25.net>        To:       pgsql-general@postgresql.org
                     
                      Sent by:                       cc:
                     
                      pgsql-general-owner@pos        Subject:  Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
                     
                      tgresql.org
                     

                     

                     
                      03/09/2005 11:28 AM
                     

                     

                     




Tom Lane wrote:
> Tope Akinniyi <topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>>I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a massive
re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows game too
far.
>
>
> This is a troll, isn't it?

My thinking as well, unfortunately, has hooked some folks...

--
Until later, Geoffrey

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org

Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 à 09:47 -0800, Ben a écrit :
> Ho ho, flame on! :)

Hear hear!!! This man is a troll if ever we have seen one.

> > Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this
> > thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program
> > in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water
> > in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places
> > that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily
> > than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL
> > you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn
> > people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers
> > who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that
> > it runs on windows.

Excuse me dear sir. There seems to be about 97% of the world that runs
Windows that does not give you permission to be rude to a tiny minority
who just happen to have written an insanely great database that runs
quite nicely on their "hobby" OSs as well as the crap you call home. If
you aren't pleased with the postgresql support on Windows don't use
it!!! That is your freedom. Ours is to think (maybe wrongly) that it is
much better running it on the BSDs and Linux of our choice. That is our
freedom.

There is nothing egoist about developing a great database server on an
OS with a tiny user base. The egoists are elsewhere dear sir, far from
the free software developers, in the closed source world. The code is
there, it is free - go and improve it. Maybe you need a dictionary to
look up the word egoist?

Please go and troll over at MySQL. They have a Windows version too and
maybe a lot more time and patience for rude people such as yourself.

Tony

I thank you all for throwing light on the question I
asked.

I was exchanging mails with one of the developers on
PgFoundry.  He made a comment and said

'Is anybody using PostgreSQL on Windows?'.

I began to wonder, was the Windows version a toy?

I head a software development outfit in Nigeria and
our environment in predominantly Windows.  People
using Oracle, MSSQL and the likes on Windows.  I
thought PostgreSQL would be a substitute for such
being an Open Source believer - Till now I have
deplored much of

Firebird for my clients on Windows. Well, much without
much headaches I must say.

From your views, I can conclude that I must not go
near using or deploying PostgreSQL on production
Windows servers. Thanks for that information. But I
was of the opinion that perfection comes out of
practice and that certain crashes and
experimentation(s) would lead to a better product
adaptation.

But I think Tim Allen's comment is quite unexpected
and unfortunate.

Tim Allen wrote:
>Perhaps it's a 419 :-). But if so I can't see the
catch yet - must be very subtle.

What is 419 about expressing a concern and an
interest? So because I posted from Nigeria and my view
is a bit not aligned with your own I am a fraudster?
I do not think we are in a chat room. Even if you must
joke you need to avoid sentimental words.

Thank you all. I think the matter is closed.

-------
Best regards,

Tope Akinniyi
CEO
ShepherdHill Software
Lagos, Nigeria

Do not forget: Jesus said, I am the way, the truth and the life.


Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, tony wrote:

> Le mercredi 09 mars 2005 à 09:47 -0800, Ben a écrit :
> > Ho ho, flame on! :)
>
> Hear hear!!! This man is a troll if ever we have seen one.

Who? Jim Nasby? He's made several helpful posts to this list in my
memory, and I'm sure an archive search would turn up a lot more.

tony wrote:
> Excuse me dear sir. There seems to be about 97% of the world that runs
> Windows that does not give you permission to be rude to a tiny minority
> who just happen to have written an insanely great database that runs
> quite nicely on their "hobby" OSs as well as the crap you call home. If
> you aren't pleased with the postgresql support on Windows don't use
> it!!! That is your freedom. Ours is to think (maybe wrongly) that it is
> much better running it on the BSDs and Linux of our choice. That is our
> freedom.
>
> There is nothing egoist about developing a great database server on an
> OS with a tiny user base. The egoists are elsewhere dear sir, far from
> the free software developers, in the closed source world. The code is
> there, it is free - go and improve it. Maybe you need a dictionary to
> look up the word egoist?
>
> Please go and troll over at MySQL. They have a Windows version too and
> maybe a lot more time and patience for rude people such as yourself.
>
> Tony

This thread is getting a bit carried away, don't you think? If this keeps up, these fora run the
risk of turning into the gong show that the c.d.oracle.* newsgroup frequently becomes.
If you think it's a legitimate flame, why not ignore it, instead of adding to the noise?

Joshua,

    Very well put !

    Cheers,

    Aly.

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Shelby Cain wrote:
>
>> --- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The problem is, that it's a question of
>>>>
>>>
>>> perception. Most windows fans don't
>>>
>>>
>>>> see that "their" OS is pretty instable.
>>>>
>>
>>
>> That may have been true in 1995.  However, in this day
>> and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as
>> unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are
>> referring to the non-NT variations.
>>
>>
> O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However
> there are a couple of things I know.
>
> 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable.
> However there is a caveat, it still can not perform
> under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux
> or other UNIX variants can.
>
> 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and
> performs fairly well under load. However it still
> can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants.
>
> The majority of the problem with Windows in these
> days is people who hire other people with little
> pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable.
>
> A properly managed Windows server can be reliable,
> can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise
> to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference
> is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you
> feel like you have it when you don't.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Shelby Cain
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
>> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
>> http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
Aly Dharshi
aly.dharshi@telus.net

     "A good speech is like a good dress
      that's short enough to be interesting
      and long enough to cover the subject"

topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk (Tope Akinniyi) writes:
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
> displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask,
> are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?

> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis;
> all for Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is
> being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is
> available to them except the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication
> tool, no this, no that.

When people interested in deploying on Windows(tm) start contributing
code to the projects, then the tide may "turn."

Looking at what I'm working on (Slony-I), that is indeed the
requirement in order for Slony-I to be supported on Windows.  I don't
use Windows(tm) in any context, so I lack all of all of the following
prerequisites:

 a) Interest
 b) Platform knowledge
 c) Development tools

I wouldn't oppose the notion of someone with Windows(tm) interest,
Windows(tm) knowledge, and access to Windows(tm) development tools
contributing support for their platform.

But someone else will have to bring those things to the table.  You
are NOT going to be forcing me to start doing Windows(tm) development
for any of my bits of the PostgreSQL software base; the only way to
get my bits ported is to find some interested Windows(tm) developer.

And if nobody is sufficiently interested to do so, that obviously
means that there _isn't_ that much interest in supporting Windows(tm)
for Slony-I.

Much the same is quite likely to be true for numerous of the PgFoundry
projects.

> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
> users.  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they
> need them.

It took a LOT of years for the Windows tools to emerge; InterBase
spent a number of years as a Unix-only application.

> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the
> devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and
> must not be shown to be deficient.
>
> I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a
> massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the
> Linux-Windows game too far.

This is NOT an issue of the "goodness/badness" of Windows, and is
CERTAINLY NOT a matter of Linux being considered an "angel," as
numerous of the PostgreSQL developers are no more fans of Linux than
they are of Windows(tm).  It is nonsense to consider it some
"Linux/Windows game," particularly when most of the PostgreSQL Core
prefer BSD 4.4-Lite variants.  [My metric there is that I have seen
numerous cases of Core members who develop on FreeBSD and NetBSD,
whereas I am not yet specifically aware of any that prefer Linux.]

It is a matter that in order for additional applications to be
deployed on Windows(tm), it is necessary to find developers that are
familiar with the platform that are interested in doing the
deployment.

If the set of people that come from the "Windows(tm) world" are
largely 'plain users' that have limited interest in helping develop
improvements, then PostgreSQL will certainly remain with a STRONG Unix
bias in what gets developed, and that's pretty much fair.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linuxxian.html
A VAX is virtually a computer, but not quite.

> I thank you all for throwing light on the question I asked.

[missed it earlier, not been reading that lists mail]


> I was exchanging mails with one of the developers on
> PgFoundry.  He made a comment and said
>
> 'Is anybody using PostgreSQL on Windows?'.

Yes. I know of several fairly large production installations running on
win32. I don't have one myself at the moment, though.


> I began to wonder, was the Windows version a toy?

No.

It does *NOT* have the same performance as the Unix version. In some
tests it comes fairly close. If your application does lots of
connect/disconnects, we *know* it is *always* significantly slower. This
can be mitigated by using connection pooling. Write intensive apps are
significantly slower, but we hope to have that fixed in 8.0.2.

The Windows version is also new. Therefor, one can expect there to be
more problems with it. Both performance-wise and stability-wise.


> From your views, I can conclude that I must not go near using
> or deploying PostgreSQL on production Windows servers. Thanks
> for that information. But I was of the opinion that
> perfection comes out of practice and that certain crashes and
> experimentation(s) would lead to a better product adaptation.

I personally wouldn't go that far. You should be fine to deploy
postgresql on win32. Just not very large installations, and you may need
to pay a bit more attention to your backups.

Again, there *are* production deployments on the win32 version. Some are
pretty large. Several have been running since beta1 (at least one since
before beta1) without significant problems.

Also, keep in mind that the postgresql community does not have a lot of
experience with the win32 port either. So if you run into problem, there
aren't as many experienced people around. Yet. Feel free to become one.


//Magnus

Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:

> Shelby Cain wrote:
>
> >--- "Uwe C. Schroeder" <uwe@oss4u.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>The problem is, that it's a question of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>perception. Most windows fans don't
> >>
> >>
> >>>see that "their" OS is pretty instable.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >That may have been true in 1995.  However, in this day
> >and age most Windows fans don't see that their OS as
> >unstable because it isn't - unless of course you are
> >referring to the non-NT variations.
> >
> >
> O.k. I don't want to start an OS war here. However
> there are a couple of things I know.
>
> 1. As of Windows 2000, Windows is reasonably stable.
> However there is a caveat, it still can not perform
> under load (read slowness, possible crash) like Linux
> or other UNIX variants can.
>
> 2. As of Windows 2003, Windows is very stable and
> performs fairly well under load. However it still
> can not keep up with Linux or other UNIX variants.
>
> The majority of the problem with Windows in these
> days is people who hire other people with little
> pieces of paper that say they are knowledgeable.
>
> A properly managed Windows server can be reliable,
> can perform reasonably well, if you have the expertise
> to do so. This is not that much unlike UNIX. The difference
> is that UNIX requires the expertise, Windows makes you
> feel like you have it when you don't.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
>
> >Regards,
> >
> >Shelby Cain
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> >Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
> >http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> >               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
> +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
> PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
>
>

The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned
already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is
more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never**
trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if
it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind
another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic.

--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com

____________________________________
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com

>
>
>The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned
>already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003 is
>more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would **never**
>trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks and if
>it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be behind
>another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic.
>
>
Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP.
It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL

Quoting "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>:

> >
> >
> >The only additional thing I would add to this if it hasn't been mentioned
> >already is that 2000 had/has some major security issues and even though 2003
> is
> >more secure out of the box from what I've experienced so far, I would
> **never**
> >trust a windows box to anything other than my LAN using private IP blocks
> and if
> >it has inbound access via a public IP then it would more certainly be
> behind
> >another firewall that is NAT'ing/Port Forwarding its traffic.
> >
> >
> Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP.
> It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
> --
> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
> +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
> PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
>
>

As with all things technology there is an art too it as well- several ways
to do things.  I don't, for instance, NAT/Port forward public interfaces for
Linux hosts because in my experience they can be hardened without much ambiguity
to be placed there.  Similarly, I don't feel the same is true with most of the
windows variants so for security sake increased an network complexity is justified.

My point is that along with the performance issues this thread has point out,
data security is another reason to consider a non-windows platform to run your
production database.


--
Keith C. Perry, MS E.E.
Director of Networks & Applications
VCSN, Inc.
http://vcsn.com

____________________________________
This email account is being host by:
VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com

The beauty of an open source, BSD-licensed project like PostgreSQL is
the entire "Who cares?" possibility list.

If you have a Windows shop and you have Windows trained personnel, then
you can use PostgreSQL.

If you have a Linux shop and Linux trained personnel, then you can use
PostgreSQL.

If you have a FreeBSD shop and FreeBSD trained personnel, then you can
use PostgreSQL.

I think a picture is starting to form here.

Monkey-wrench time...

Suppose that I have a 4-way AMD64 Windows system running PostgreSQL and
even that runs out of steam.  I have added as much ram as the system
will hold and the load is still causing problems.

Now, I can get an IBM machine running SUSE with a pile of processors and
gobs of ram and scale to whatever TPS I need.

And the data + schema?

Dump from the Windows box, load on the IBM SUSE box.

I might even be able to SLONY it over without ever going off line.

IOW -- what't the whole point of open source BSD licensed projects?

It's that you just do whatever you like to solve the problem in the way
that is best for your organization (with your personnel and your
hardware and your training and your data).  And if you need to scale to
somewhere else, then you can do it.

It's the best of all worlds.

Jim C. Nasby wrote:

>Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this
>thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program
>in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water
>in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places
>that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily
>than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL
>you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn
>people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers
>who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that
>it runs on windows.
>
>
Ok---   I will admit to a anti-Windows bias.  But at least my bias is
informed.  In addition to my former employment at Microsoft, I have
studies both types of OS's in detail.  Here are some specific comments I
would make:

1)  I do not expect PostgreSQL to *ever* perform as well on Windows as
it does on Linux.  This is primarily due to the fundamentally different
emphasis in kernel architecture between UNIX-style and VMS-style
operating systems.  Windows server applications which are process-based
are always likely to underperform.  Windows applications ported to Linux
are similarly likely to underperform.

2)  Windows stability is getting far better, but does still lag behind
that of Linux.

3)  I think that it is very likely that you might be legally required to
get CAL's for Windows Server in order to allow the systems to access
PostgreSQL.  While this is not enforced by the OS, I don't know whether
the EULA requires it (my guess is that it does).

PostgreSQL on Windows has 2 uses.  It is for developers to play around
with, and it is for smaller businesses with few connections to use.  One
you need to scale, you will probably have to go to Linux, BSD, etc.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Nobody should ever put a server regardless of OS on a public IP.
> It should always be firewalled/Nat/Port Forwarding.

Except for the firewall/Nat server, of course :D

--
Alban Hertroys

While we run PostgreSQL on Free-BSD for our production systems, we have
'demo' laptop windows XP systems that contain the entire server
architecture (application server, database, win32 client, etc).  Sure is
handy to be able to run PostgreSQL on windows and not have to change
anything......

> PostgreSQL on Windows has 2 uses.  It is for developers to play around
> with, and it is for smaller businesses with few connections to use.
> One you need to scale, you will probably have to go to Linux, BSD, etc.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 10:19, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi all,

Howdy.  Glad to have you on the lists.

> 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and
> watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made
> on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do
> not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features
> of a man.

That's the first problem.  PostgreSQL is new on windows.

> 2. This response is alarming:
> Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:
> >We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
> developers who want to
> >do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves
> feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops).

This is the second problem.  Windows simply has problems that cause data
relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future.

> a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about?

The PostgreSQL Global Development Group, I'd suppose.  That's the core
team that makes the big decisions.

> c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model -
> Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a
> miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a
> reliable database?

That would be a bit harsh.  It's more a combination of several things.

1:  Windows / postgresql is quite a bit slower than unix / postgresql.
2:  The Windows port is known to have a few issues with heavy load on
Windows.
3:  PostgreSQL on Windows is a new port, and therefore needs a bit of a
shakedown cruise before anyone can definitively say it's stable, fast
and reliable.

> d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw
> development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish?

They could, but I'm not sure they would.  It's really up to the folks
who developed the port to windows to keep it working and up to date.  IF
some basic core part of postgresql was changed, and that broke the
windows port, and no one was willing or able to fix it, then yes, I
guess the port might be abandoned.  But that's no more likely for
Windows than any other semi-obscure platform that postgresql runs on
like AIX or SCO unix.

> Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would
> PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows?  If not, I think at this stage I
> can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows
> Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come
> as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations.  I am just
> expanding my varieties.

Any new port of a database to a new operating system presents the
possibility that some corner case that no one has tested before will pop
up and corrupt your data at some point.  So, from that perspective,
PostgreSQL on windows is not considered 100% reliable yet.  Not because
of a lot of known problems, but because of a lack of heavy testing in a
large and diverse group of production environments.

> Off the topic:
> -->
> Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
> >I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of PostgreSQL
> - if your windows box >crashes and takes the DB with it - most likely
> it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of >an incompetent
> sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be this "shitty" free
> database >system that's to blame.
>
> I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil
> PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL
> the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of
> licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers.

But those databases have years to get shaken down into shape.
PostgreSQL is new on that platform, so caution is a good thing there.

> I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my
> decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now.

I encourage you to keep using it, and contribute in any way you can.
PostgreSQL has one of the most active and helpful user communities there
is around any open source project.  And it's a great database to boot.

I never thought your post was a troll, by the way.  I just thought you
weren't very familiar with the whole "PostgreSQL ported to Windows" set
of issues and therefore phrased your questions in ways that made some
eyebrows pop up.

Welcome to the community!

Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat
> what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In
> the same vein, our computerisation culture is different.
>
> I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows
> desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the
> beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows.
> That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines
> such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they
> manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL,
> you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is
> why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX
> because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that
> bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house
> in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the
> operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment,
> peculiarities and experiences.

Not that different from Europe, or I'd guess the U.S. - in many small
businesses "computers" mean "Windows". Certainly five year ago customers
looked at you funny if you wanted to run on Linux/*BSD.

> As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give
> to people what they wants.  I think that is the basis of service. I
> have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit
> that we have not had any problems so far.
>
> Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients'
> operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I
> thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on
> some of the servers.
>
> I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get.  I checked
> PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS.
> Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke?  That prompted my
> post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY?
>
> Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final
> blueprint on PostgreSQL.  I need your advice on this.
>
> 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows
> and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents
> made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy,
> do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the
> features of a man.

Nobody can stop you using PostgreSQL. Ever. Or from giving it away,
making changes, selling it etc.

> 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:
>
>> We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
>> developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons
>> best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their
>> laptops).
>
>
> a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about?

In an email in the public lists we = Tom

 > b. Is he speaking for
> PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community?

Official pronouncements from "core" will be marked as such. No-one
speaks for the "entire" PostgreSQL community. You're part of that
community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the
lists.

 > c. Does
> this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do
> not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature
> of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable
> database?

The core of PostgreSQL is the same in both versions. It is the
connection to the operating-system that differs. There has been a lot of
work put in to get it running on Windows (otherwise it would have
happened before version 8). It will take time to understand how best to
adapt to this new environment, and it may be that *nix systems are
always better to run on.

 > d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw
 > development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish?

Yes. Short of kidnapping them and torturing them, no-one can force them
to work. However, some of them get paid to work on PostgreSQL, and all
of them are interested in it.

> I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason.  In fact one of
> my two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that
> PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the
> same boat. So it is good to support many boats.

It can also be bad - the more time spent supporting Windows, the less
time is spent working on PostgreSQL itself.

> Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would
> PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows?  If not, I think at this stage
> I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows
> Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come
> as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations.  I am just
> expanding my varieties.

Sorry - I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. The code for
PostgreSQL is the same in both cases - is that what you mean?

> I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The
> point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it
> for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS
> should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some
> support from some sources, fine.
>
> Off the topic: --> Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
>
>> I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of
>> PostgreSQL - if your windows box >crashes and takes the DB with it
>> - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of
>> >an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be
>> this "shitty" free database >system that's to blame.
>
>
> I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil
> PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL
> the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of
> licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The
> company that uses them are up and running; not as if only
> organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or
> Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS?

If a crash occurs on a machine, it is always easier to blame the newer
element. Especially if the person setting up the system is inexperienced
or poorly trained. In Europe and USA there are a *lot* of inexperienced
Windows sysadmin's and fewer Unix ones. Traditionally, Unix machines
were large and expensive and people looking after them were
knowledgeable and well-paid.

Also, very few people are using Windows to run "serious" systems by the
definitions of some people on these lists. A lot of big, expensive
machines have only ever run one of the Unix variants.

 > If PostgreSQL cannot thrive
> where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut
> yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not
> come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if
> PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a
> different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do
> often witness many utility *NIX applications do crash on our Mandrake
> server, but not PostgreSQL crashing. <--

If you have many applications crashing, you probably have hardware
problems, a bad installation or run a lot of unstable software. You
shouldn't have programs crashing on a server.

> I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my
> decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now.

That's clearly a decision only you can make. Getting replication working
on Windows will happen quicker the more people help. If all you want is
an off-machine backup, perhaps look at PITR (see manuals for details).

> Thank you all.
>
> NB.
>
> 1. Magnus Handler's late submission is highly appreciated.
>
> 2. I or someone else might have been rude by the post. Sorry to all
> about that. I accept responsibility for all that. But if you call
> someone a thief because he stole $1, what do you call yourself when
> you steal $2? Oh, I was disturbed reading Tony's reaction. Quite
> outrageous, intolerant and immature. I believe mailing list concept
> like this is all about education and guidance - Oh, take this way do
> not take this way. Share from my experience and so on.

As someone who's been on these lists for several years now, I can
honestly say they're among the friendliest and most helpful I've found.

One of the problems that do occur from time to time though is with
different uses of English from around the world. Here is how your
original message will have looked to many people:

-- Original message below: commentary in []--
I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are
we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
[The people behind PostgreSQL are extremists. Also lazy or misguided]

Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
for Linux except the Windows installer.
[There is a deliberate neglect of Windows]
I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.
[The community is lazy, or what they're doing is foolish]
Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin.
[The database/pgadmin are not large projects with a lot of work.
ODBC/.Net/OLE projects are not even worthy of mention]
No replication tool, no this, no that.
[You should all stop what you are doing and work on Windows tools for me]

I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.

Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
users.  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need them.
[I don't need you anyway - Firebird is better]

Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil
is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not
be shown to be deficient.
[PostgreSQL is primarily a Windows application now. People interested in
running on *nix should stop being so selfish.]

I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a
massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows
game too far.
[You are clearly not responsible for your actions, you have all been
misguided. Luckily, I am here now and if you'll all stop what you're
doing and do what I say then everything will be alright]
-- End of original message --

Now, I've been negative in the commentary there - but to many of the
readers that is how it will have looked.

You clearly didn't intend to cause offence, but on an international list
you need to be careful with your choice of words, and allow for the fact
that many of your readers will be at the end of a long day of hard work.

To many people on the list, it will be the first time they have seen
your name. As far as they were concerned you had a Nigerian
company-name, with a UK (free) email address and with your first email
have criticised the project, its developers, the wider community and
their operating-system of choice. They then assumed you were just a
student somewhere causing trouble (there are unfortunately plenty of
people who like nothing more than "trolling" public lists to cause a fuss).

And, if you really want to see PostgreSQL on Windows encouraged, your
best bet is to volunteer yourself. PG has only been running on Windows
for a couple of months and someone is going to be Nigeria's leading
expert on running PostgreSQL on Windows. Would you like it to be you?

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

Tope,

> As someone who's been on these lists for several years now, I can honestly
> say they're among the friendliest and most helpful I've found.

i can certainly echo that sentiment.  from what i can tell, Tom in particular
(since he's been 'called out' here) has (most of the time ...) the patience and
good will of a saint ... you can do a LOT worse (e.g. a 17-yr old "CustSvc" rep
@ M$) than having someone like him -- and many others -- here to interact with.

in the end, there's lots of good & bad DB software on all platforms.

imho, its adoption for business purposes ONLY makes sense if there's strong
support for it.

that support -- whehter it be 'run time' or 'development' can come from

(a) your own org
(b) help from others on this list
(c) formal support from the likes of Command Prompt (unabshed free plug, Josh)

when i wear my casual/individual user hat, i depend on this list <flame> when
people actually (bother to) answer my (sometimes misguided) questions ;-)
</flame>

when wearing my business hat, i NEVER deploy a pgsql solution -- or any other
db for that matter -- without some internal ((a)) competence/support .... if
ONLY to have someone to adequately interact with this list (b), and
professionally contracted support (c).

just my $0.02 ...

richard

...it will be the first time they have seen your name... ...with your first
email have criticised the project...

Check the archives.  This poster has been active on the list for awhile.

Cheers,

Rick



                     
                      Richard Huxton
                     
                      <dev@archonet.com>             To:       Tope Akinniyi <topeakinniyi@yahoo.co.uk>
                     
                      Sent by:                       cc:       pgsql-general@postgresql.org
                     
                      pgsql-general-owner@pos        Subject:  Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
                     
                      tgresql.org
                     

                     

                     
                      03/10/2005 01:31 PM
                     

                     

                     




Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat
> what the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In
> the same vein, our computerisation culture is different.
>
> I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows
> desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the
> beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows.
> That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines
> such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they
> manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL,
> you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is
> why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX
> because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that
> bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house
> in Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the
> operations of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment,
> peculiarities and experiences.

Not that different from Europe, or I'd guess the U.S. - in many small
businesses "computers" mean "Windows". Certainly five year ago customers
looked at you funny if you wanted to run on Linux/*BSD.

> As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give
> to people what they wants.  I think that is the basis of service. I
> have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit
> that we have not had any problems so far.
>
> Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients'
> operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I
> thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on
> some of the servers.
>
> I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get.  I checked
> PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS.
> Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke?  That prompted my
> post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY?
>
> Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final
> blueprint on PostgreSQL.  I need your advice on this.
>
> 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows
> and watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents
> made on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy,
> do not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the
> features of a man.

Nobody can stop you using PostgreSQL. Ever. Or from giving it away,
making changes, selling it etc.

> 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:
>
>> We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
>> developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons
>> best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their
>> laptops).
>
>
> a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about?

In an email in the public lists we = Tom

 > b. Is he speaking for
> PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community?

Official pronouncements from "core" will be marked as such. No-one
speaks for the "entire" PostgreSQL community. You're part of that
community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the
lists.

 > c. Does
> this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model - Oh do
> not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a miniature
> of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a reliable
> database?

The core of PostgreSQL is the same in both versions. It is the
connection to the operating-system that differs. There has been a lot of
work put in to get it running on Windows (otherwise it would have
happened before version 8). It will take time to understand how best to
adapt to this new environment, and it may be that *nix systems are
always better to run on.

 > d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw
 > development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish?

Yes. Short of kidnapping them and torturing them, no-one can force them
to work. However, some of them get paid to work on PostgreSQL, and all
of them are interested in it.

> I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason.  In fact one of
> my two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that
> PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the
> same boat. So it is good to support many boats.

It can also be bad - the more time spent supporting Windows, the less
time is spent working on PostgreSQL itself.

> Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would
> PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows?  If not, I think at this stage
> I can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows
> Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come
> as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations.  I am just
> expanding my varieties.

Sorry - I'm not sure I understand this paragraph. The code for
PostgreSQL is the same in both cases - is that what you mean?

> I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The
> point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it
> for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS
> should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some
> support from some sources, fine.
>
> Off the topic: --> Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:
>
>> I think it could even damage the quite good reputation of
>> PostgreSQL - if your windows box >crashes and takes the DB with it
>> - most likely it's not the fault of a lousy OS, nor the fault of
>> >an incompetent sysadmin who forgot to make backups - it will be
>> this "shitty" free database >system that's to blame.
>
>
> I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil
> PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL
> the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of
> licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The
> company that uses them are up and running; not as if only
> organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or
> Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS?

If a crash occurs on a machine, it is always easier to blame the newer
element. Especially if the person setting up the system is inexperienced
or poorly trained. In Europe and USA there are a *lot* of inexperienced
Windows sysadmin's and fewer Unix ones. Traditionally, Unix machines
were large and expensive and people looking after them were
knowledgeable and well-paid.

Also, very few people are using Windows to run "serious" systems by the
definitions of some people on these lists. A lot of big, expensive
machines have only ever run one of the Unix variants.

 > If PostgreSQL cannot thrive
> where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut
> yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not
> come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if
> PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a
> different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do
> often witness many utility *NIX applications do crash on our Mandrake
> server, but not PostgreSQL crashing. <--

If you have many applications crashing, you probably have hardware
problems, a bad installation or run a lot of unstable software. You
shouldn't have programs crashing on a server.

> I will appreciate your kind response on this before I finally take my
> decision on whether to continue with PostgreSQL for Windows for now.

That's clearly a decision only you can make. Getting replication working
on Windows will happen quicker the more people help. If all you want is
an off-machine backup, perhaps look at PITR (see manuals for details).

> Thank you all.
>
> NB.
>
> 1. Magnus Handler's late submission is highly appreciated.
>
> 2. I or someone else might have been rude by the post. Sorry to all
> about that. I accept responsibility for all that. But if you call
> someone a thief because he stole $1, what do you call yourself when
> you steal $2? Oh, I was disturbed reading Tony's reaction. Quite
> outrageous, intolerant and immature. I believe mailing list concept
> like this is all about education and guidance - Oh, take this way do
> not take this way. Share from my experience and so on.

As someone who's been on these lists for several years now, I can
honestly say they're among the friendliest and most helpful I've found.

One of the problems that do occur from time to time though is with
different uses of English from around the world. Here is how your
original message will have looked to many people:

-- Original message below: commentary in []--
I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask, are
we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?
[The people behind PostgreSQL are extremists. Also lazy or misguided]

Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
for Linux except the Windows installer.
[There is a deliberate neglect of Windows]
I ask myself what is being done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.
[The community is lazy, or what they're doing is foolish]
Nothing is available to them except the Database and PgAdmin.
[The database/pgadmin are not large projects with a lot of work.
ODBC/.Net/OLE projects are not even worthy of mention]
No replication tool, no this, no that.
[You should all stop what you are doing and work on Windows tools for me]

I was troubled when CommandPrompt, the leading Windows support provider
responded to a post that their plPHP is for Linux only.

Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
users.  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need
them.
[I don't need you anyway - Firebird is better]

Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the devil
is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and must not
be shown to be deficient.
[PostgreSQL is primarily a Windows application now. People interested in
running on *nix should stop being so selfish.]

I am not holding anybody responsible, but I think we need to do a
massive re-orientation of the community not to carry the Linux-Windows
game too far.
[You are clearly not responsible for your actions, you have all been
misguided. Luckily, I am here now and if you'll all stop what you're
doing and do what I say then everything will be alright]
-- End of original message --

Now, I've been negative in the commentary there - but to many of the
readers that is how it will have looked.

You clearly didn't intend to cause offence, but on an international list
you need to be careful with your choice of words, and allow for the fact
that many of your readers will be at the end of a long day of hard work.

To many people on the list, it will be the first time they have seen
your name. As far as they were concerned you had a Nigerian
company-name, with a UK (free) email address and with your first email
have criticised the project, its developers, the wider community and
their operating-system of choice. They then assumed you were just a
student somewhere causing trouble (there are unfortunately plenty of
people who like nothing more than "trolling" public lists to cause a fuss).

And, if you really want to see PostgreSQL on Windows encouraged, your
best bet is to volunteer yourself. PG has only been running on Windows
for a couple of months and someone is going to be Nigeria's leading
expert on running PostgreSQL on Windows. Would you like it to be you?

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:39:53AM -0600, Doug Hall wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:02:10 -0600, Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
> >... but the fact is there's still a LOT of places
> > that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily
> > than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL
> > you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn
> > people off of PostgreSQL.
>
> Perhaps someone on the list who knows and uses the different operating
> systems could set up a lab, to compare PostgreSQL between them.
> Perhaps the latest Windows Server, a popular distribution of Linux,
> and Mac OS X?
>
> Has this already been done, with regard to performance?

There is a perftest project on either pgfoundry or gborg that has been
doing performance testing. I think it's all being done on linux right
now, but it would certainly be interesting to compare linux, freebsd,
and windows. Unfortunately, there's no way to do an apples-to-apples
(pun intended) comparison with OS X, since not all of the OS's will run
on the same hardware. Linux will run on Power, though, as will OpenBSD.
I think FreeBSD's support is still pretty bare, but I'm not certain.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 09:47:17AM -0800, Ben wrote:
> Ho ho, flame on! :)
>
> My completely annecodal experience with devs which prefer windows over
> posix is that the former prods things until they seem to work and accepts
> unexplained behavior far more readily than the latter. Do I *really* want
> that kind of mentality in my database devs?

Of course not, and I don't think there's any risk of this happening. Are
you aware that every patch submitted for inclusion goes through a code
review? It's very insightful to see the discussion and mentality on the
-hackers list; data integrity is always the absolute number 1 priority.
Anyone who wants to code for PostgreSQL who doesn't share that priority
won't last long at all.

> Anyway, I think you have the focus wrong. It's not: "run our software on
> what we tell you to".... it's more: "we believe this platform is better
> than others, so we'll write our free software for that. But if you want to
> port it over to the platform of your choice, have fun doing that."

With the attitude of "Windows can not be made to reliably run a
database", how many developers do you think will be attracted?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 05:51:43PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> Ok---   I will admit to a anti-Windows bias.  But at least my bias is
> informed.  In addition to my former employment at Microsoft, I have
> studies both types of OS's in detail.  Here are some specific comments I
> would make:
>
> 1)  I do not expect PostgreSQL to *ever* perform as well on Windows as
> it does on Linux.  This is primarily due to the fundamentally different
> emphasis in kernel architecture between UNIX-style and VMS-style
> operating systems.  Windows server applications which are process-based
> are always likely to underperform.  Windows applications ported to Linux
> are similarly likely to underperform.

This is akin to saying that an application written to use MySQL will
never perform well on PostgreSQL. It depends on *how* the code is
written. If your SQL is tuned to one database, it will likely have
performance issues on other databases. Likewise, a process-based server
will perform poorly on Windows, while a threaded server will not. This
is an implimentation choice. There's no reason why PostgreSQL on windows
*has* to be process based (though of course there would be serious
technical issues with changing it).

Of course, by simply hand waving and saying "it can never be better", it
never will be better.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > 2. This response is alarming:
> > Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:
> > >We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
> > developers who want to
> > >do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves
> > feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops).
>
> This is the second problem.  Windows simply has problems that cause data
> relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future.

Do you have any references to these problems? I've seen several people
mention things like this in passing, but I have yet to see any
specifics.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant               decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"

On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:19 +0000, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
--- cut ---
>
> I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get.  I checked
> PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS.
> Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke?  That prompted
> my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY?

Have you tried to setup the PostgreSQL server on a Linux computer (with
replication) and use it via PostgreSQL clients running on Windows(tm)
computers.  This way your clients will still have the OS they are use to
and the database server will be running on the best OS for it.

--- cut ---

On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 15:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > > 2. This response is alarming:
> > > Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:
> > > >We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
> > > developers who want to
> > > >do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves
> > > feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops).
> >
> > This is the second problem.  Windows simply has problems that cause data
> > relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future.
>
> Do you have any references to these problems? I've seen several people
> mention things like this in passing, but I have yet to see any
> specifics.

I'd have to look through the -hackers list and a few other places, but
what I remember seeing was problems in the general area of unreliable
journaling / disk syncing et. al.

It's been a while.

Plus my experience has been that Windows often behaves in unpredictable
ways when it's running under a heavy load, so I'd expect race conditions
to show up under those circumstances, and possibly corrupt data.  It's
certainly been a problem for most large SQL Server installations I've
dealt with.

> From: Tope Akinniyi
>
<snip>
experiences. As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give to people what they wants.  I think
thatis 
the basis of service. I have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit that we have not had any
problemsso 
far.
</snip>

Dear Tope,

My apologies that I cannot answer your questions directly,  hopefully someone else will on the list.

Understand that this is not really that much of a cultural issue.  Both Linux and Postgres are born from interational
cooperation.  Even in the United States,  windows use is pervasive, with very little support or desire for Linux (or
other
non-windows operating systems).  The long history of Posix systems in the United States is really limited to
educational,research 
institutions and a very small percentage of commercial enterprises.  Linux has changed this a little over the last 5
yearsor so.  
But I personally know dozens of IT professionals local to my area and only one of them is what I would call a linux
expert. This 
same ratio applies to the end user market.

If what your customers really want is reliablity and replication options, then that currently conflicts with Windows
and
Postgres.  Noone can really guarantee that will change.  But I submit that if you really want to acheive excellence in
theIT 
business you will educate yourself and then your customers about using Linux for dedicated database services.  You will
realize
high reliability and easy maintenance for very low per user cost as compared to just about anything else.

You may want to contact the folks at this web address for local linux support.  http://nglug.org/

In any case I wish you the best of luck in your business.

Best regards,

Jim Wilson

Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22:59AM -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:

>>This is the second problem.  Windows simply has problems that cause data
>>relibility problems that may or may not be surmountable in the future.
>
>
> Do you have any references to these problems? I've seen several people
> mention things like this in passing, but I have yet to see any
> specifics.

I deal with clients who use all variations of windows OSs.  I've
previously worked for a large company who used both Unix and Windows
servers.  In every case, the Windows boxes were/are more susceptible to
simply locking up or crashing.  When your only resolution is to power
cycle the server, you're going to trash your database.  I've seen it on
xp, nt, 200?...

I don't do development on Windows boxes anymore.  It's just too
frustrating with the stability issues.

--
Until later, Geoffrey

Richard_D_Levine@Raytheon.com wrote:
> ...it will be the first time they have seen your name... ...with your first
> email have criticised the project...
>
> Check the archives.  This poster has been active on the list for awhile.

He has indeed, and even posted a news item, but it will still be the
first time many people have seen Tope's name. Given the traffic on the
various lists and the number of new users we've gained recently, you
need to post a *lot* for people to recognise you.

--
   Richard Huxton
   Archonet Ltd

* Jim C. Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> [0336 21:36]:

> With the attitude of "Windows can not be made to reliably run a
> database", how many developers do you think will be attracted?

People are entitled to an opinion, and in many cases its formed from
experience. I think it's unrealistic to expect a large team of programmers who
have been using *NIX to think windows is equally good.
If they did, they'd run on it, right?

The process model is presumably there because for 90% of platforms it makes
sense to do it that way. No-one is going to object to a well-written thread
based postmaster, but it's expecting a bit much for it to spring into life
off the bat.

To me a database is a service, like a dns or dhcp server, and wanting to
put it on windoms is like wanting to run BIND or IPF on there.

For most people it's going to be easier to stick a linux on a dedicated box
and run postgresql on that. I don't see what the problem is with that.

Just to be clear:

I have no interest or opinion in windows, microsoft or anything else that
makes slashdotters jump up and down beyound playing civ3 on it.
You like it, that's great.

The one thing the world does'nt need is another 'my os can beat up your os'
thread.

--
'That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way.'
        -- Prof. Farnsworth
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

Richard Huxton wrote:
> It can also be bad - the more time spent supporting Windows, the less
> time is spent working on PostgreSQL itself.
>
Unless the Windows support attracts more resources. Personally I'd be
surprised if that's not the case.

> That's clearly a decision only you can make. Getting replication working
> on Windows will happen quicker the more people help. If all you want is
> an off-machine backup, perhaps look at PITR (see manuals for details).
>
If you're using a Java based client perhaps something like C-JDBC
http://c-jdbc.objectweb.org would help. It's known to run well with
PostgreSQL.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

That remains to be seen.

I wouldn't consider it the least bit worthwhile to try to evaluate it
now, as what is happening now is that "WinFolk" are getting their very
first exposure to the software.

It would seem surprising for new developers to emerge from the
Windows(tm) population before at least 6 months have passed.

The way developers emerge is that users come along, work with the
software for a while, and discover things that "itch" them the wrong
way.  They have become sufficiently committed that it is worth putting
a little effort into scratching some of the itches.  That starts
getting them into understanding the code a little better, allowing
them to subsequently scratch deeper itches.
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/nonrdbms.html
Share and Enjoy!!

Quoth decibel@decibel.org ("Jim C. Nasby"):
> With the attitude of "Windows can not be made to reliably run a
> database", how many developers do you think will be attracted?

That remains to be seen.

I wouldn't consider it the least bit worthwhile to try to evaluate it
now, as what is happening now is that "WinFolk" are getting their very
first exposure to the software.

It would seem surprising for new developers to emerge from the
Windows(tm) population before at least 6 months have passed.

The way developers emerge is that users come along, work with the
software for a while, and discover things that "itch" them the wrong
way.  They have become sufficiently committed that it is worth putting
a little effort into scratching some of the itches.  That starts
getting them into understanding the code a little better, allowing
them to subsequently scratch deeper itches.
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/nonrdbms.html
Share and Enjoy!!

An idea I like, because I have entrenched windows clients also, is to run
things that run best under Linux on VMWare (vmware.com) and to run good
Windows things (like desktop apps) under Windows.  Linux can be either the
host or guest OS under VMWare, so the options of which OS is truly in
control are symmetrical.  I'm proposing this to my customer to solve a
completely different set of problems (not PostgreSQL related) but the
approach might have merit here as well.

If anyone has tried this please respond.

Thanks,

Rick



                      
                      Neil Dugan
                      
                      <postgres@butterflystitc        To:       pgsql-general@postgresql.org
                      
                      hes.com.au>                     cc:
                      
                      Sent by:                        Subject:  Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL still for Linux only?
                      
                      pgsql-general-owner@post
                      
                      gresql.org
                      

                      

                      
                      03/10/2005 05:29 PM
                      

                      

                      




On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 16:19 +0000, Tope Akinniyi wrote:
> Hi all,
>
--- cut ---
>
> I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get.  I checked
> PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS.
> Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke?  That prompted
> my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY?

Have you tried to setup the PostgreSQL server on a Linux computer (with
replication) and use it via PostgreSQL clients running on Windows(tm)
computers.  This way your clients will still have the OS they are use to
and the database server will be running on the best OS for it.

--- cut ---




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org

Richard Huxton wrote:
> > 2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:
> >
> >> We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
> >> developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons
> >> best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their
> >> laptops).
> >
> >
> > a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about?
>
> In an email in the public lists we = Tom
>
>  > b. Is he speaking for
> > PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community?
>
> Official pronouncements from "core" will be marked as such. No-one
> speaks for the "entire" PostgreSQL community. You're part of that
> community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the
> lists.

As a core member I can confirm that "we = Tom" in this context.  The
core group has made no decisions about the relative stability of Win32
vs Unix, and is unlikely to in the future.

The decision about operating system and stability are to be made by
end-users based on their experience.  We do our best to make all
platforms as well supported as possible.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

> An idea I like, because I have entrenched windows clients
> also, is to run things that run best under Linux on VMWare
> (vmware.com) and to run good Windows things (like desktop
> apps) under Windows.  Linux can be either the host or guest
> OS under VMWare, so the options of which OS is truly in
> control are symmetrical.  I'm proposing this to my customer
> to solve a completely different set of problems (not
> PostgreSQL related) but the approach might have merit here as well.
>
> If anyone has tried this please respond.

Do *not* do this with a production database.

Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of those)
thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will almost
certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just puts it in the RAM
cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on the disk/raid.

This is vmware workstation, of course. I'm sure their server line of
products act differently.

//Magnus

Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 10:10 -0500, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com a
écrit :
> An idea I like, because I have entrenched windows clients also, is to run
> things that run best under Linux on VMWare (vmware.com) and to run good
> Windows things (like desktop apps) under Windows.  Linux can be either the
> host or guest OS under VMWare, so the options of which OS is truly in
> control are symmetrical.  I'm proposing this to my customer to solve a
> completely different set of problems (not PostgreSQL related) but the
> approach might have merit here as well.
>
> If anyone has tried this please respond.

=:-D A man with good ideas! Yes this rocks.

I had a database running like this for quite some time at a clients. It
was an NT server running on a Linux host but other way round it works
just as well. This permits easy replication, easy backup (take a VMware
snapshot of your virtual disk from time to time). I could ssh into the
Linux box and reboot the NT virtual machine after working hours.

Right now the high end virtualisation stuff from the ESX and GSX virtual
machines is trickling down into the Workstation variant. You will be
able to do much more with the VMware 5 Workstation which is on beta test
at the moment.

For all Windows shops this is a very good way of running Linux without
getting your hands dirty. I would recommend
http://lwn.net/Articles/69534/ any distribution based on RHEL. If you
decide to go all the way later you will already have RHEL experience for
$189 outlay - the cost of the VMware workstation licence.

Cheers

Tony

Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 16:51 +0100, Magnus Hagander a écrit :

> Do *not* do this with a production database.
>
> Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of those)
> thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will almost
> certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just puts it in the RAM
> cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on the disk/raid.

Putting Windows NT inside a virtual machine (VMware workstation) solved
all hardware stability problems in my case. NT would only crash if we
forgot to reboot every 45 days or so... The Linux host had a 9 month
uptime at one point.

If you could be more explicit as to why VMware client does not write to
disk I would much appreciate. I was thinking of virtualising a couple of
servers (Linux client on Linux host). TIA

Tony Grant

> > Do *not* do this with a production database.
> >
> > Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of
> > those) thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will
> > almost certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just
> puts it in
> > the RAM cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on
> the disk/raid.
>
> Putting Windows NT inside a virtual machine (VMware
> workstation) solved all hardware stability problems in my
> case. NT would only crash if we forgot to reboot every 45
> days or so... The Linux host had a 9 month uptime at one point.
>
> If you could be more explicit as to why VMware client does
> not write to disk I would much appreciate. I was thinking of
> virtualising a couple of servers (Linux client on Linux host). TIA

PostgreSQL relies on fsync() putting your data all the way through to
the disc. It must *not* stay in cache memory, because then you can lose
transactions. If write ordering is also lost (which is likely in this
case), you can get a corrupt database.

In the tests I've been running on vmware, a fsync() in the guest OS will
flush it out of the guest OSs buffer, but the data will stay in the host
OS buffers.

This means that you may be hosed if your host OS crashes. It should
survive a *guest* OS crash without problems.

I haven't had any actual crashes on this, but there is plenty of
evidence that syncing doesn't go all the way through (see my other mail)
at least with Windows as the host OS. Which means you are basically
running with write-cache enabled all the time with no way to turn it
off, and some reading of the pg lists should tell you how bad that is.

It's possible this works fine if you use direct disk access in vmware
(giving the session a native disk to access), but I haven't tried that.


After some looking around (and with some hints from Dave Page) for my
own needs of virtualising linux-on-linux, I've moved to linux-vservers.
While it doesn't virtualise everything, it's good enough for me. I
suggest you at least look at it before going down the vmware path - it's
also free software unlike vmware.

//Magnus

Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 17:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander a écrit :
> > > Do *not* do this with a production database.
> > >
> > > Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of
> > > those) thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will
> > > almost certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just
> > puts it in
> > > the RAM cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on
> > the disk/raid.
...snip
> It's possible this works fine if you use direct disk access in vmware
> (giving the session a native disk to access), but I haven't tried that.

OK! I understand your worries now. I always do this because initial
reading through the different disk modes when 3.0 came out made my hair
stand on end. The speed and size of disks today means that each virtual
machine can treat a part of the disk as its own as far as I'm concerned.
The other disk modes always seemed strange to me - maybe they have uses
for others... When I am in my virtual machine I like to see the HD diode
go on each time I do a save, improves my tan =:-D

> After some looking around (and with some hints from Dave Page) for my
> own needs of virtualising linux-on-linux, I've moved to linux-vservers.
> While it doesn't virtualise everything, it's good enough for me. I
> suggest you at least look at it before going down the vmware path - it's
> also free software unlike vmware.

Looked at that. It requires heavy guru voodoo magic at host OS install
time. VMware (I already own the licence I was going to use) can be
installed on a machine that is up and running.

Thanks

Tony

Tope Akinniyi wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what
> the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same
> vein, our computerisation culture is different.

Having lived in Indonesia, I can sympathize with your situation.  It is
not just Africa, but most of the developing world.

>
> I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows
> desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the
> beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows.
> That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines
> such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they
> manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL,
> you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is
> why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX
> because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that
> bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in
> Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations
> of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment,
> peculiarities and experiences.

If you want a reasonable open source RDBMS for production use on
Wondows, I would suggest that you use Firebird.  However if Windows is
not the selling point, consider the following:

1)  You may be able to get extra use out of older systems by installing
Linux and PostgreSQL.  This may perform better than Windows and Firebird
as long as you don't need a GUI.  This may be more reliable than Windows
especially if you can't afford high-end hardware (ECC RAM, SCSI drives,
etc) for your production servers anyway.

2)  The PL's available for PostgreSQL add a lot of flexability.

>
> As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give
> to people what they wants.  I think that is the basis of service. I
> have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit
> that we have not had any problems so far.
>

The glory of open source is that people will do what they want with
it.   PostgreSQL for Windows is not really something I would run a large
production database on at the moment.  However, open source tools tend
to develop in strange ways.  I am sure that as PostgreSQL on Windows
becomes more popular, the issues will get worked out as much as possible.

> Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients'
> operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I
> thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on
> some of the servers.

Command Prompt's solution works on Windows.  Slony will require some
porting, but if this is important, you can hire a programmer to help
with the porting :-)  Otherwise you can wait for someone else to do it.

>
> I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get.  I checked
> PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS.
> Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke?  That prompted
> my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY?
>

Check the archives about Slony-I and Windows.  Maybe ask the developers
how much work it would be to port it.  If labor is inexpensive in
Nigeria, maybe you can hire a programmer to do it.

> Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final
> blueprint on PostgreSQL.  I need your advice on this.
>
> 1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and
> watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made
> on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do
> not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features
> of a man.

Ok, maybe others can provide more refined estimates, but....

I expect that it will be 1-2 years before PostgreSQL on Windows is
mature enough for higher-load purposes.  You can however help by using
it, and communicating your experiences with programmers.  If this is not
enough, you can even pay someone to fix things for you.  These are
selling points of open source software.

>
> 2. This response is alarming:
> Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:
> >We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
> developers who want to
> >do testing on their laptops (and for reasons best known to themselves
> feel a need to run >Windows on their laptops).
>
> a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about?
> b. Is he speaking for PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL
> community?

As much as I don't like to speak for others, I read this as saying
something like:

"We (the core developers) began work on the Windows port because we
wanted to support developers running PostgreSQL on their systems."

> c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model -
> Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a
> miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a
> reliable database?

I think the core team takes all aspects of PostgreSQL very seriously.
Part of the problem is that they are so serious about it that they don't
want problems in Windows to smear the name of PostgreSQL.  So comments
like Windows being unsuitable for any RDBMS use applies to MS SQL and
Firebird as PostgreSQL.  But that doesn't mean that people won't do the
best that they can to make it work.

> d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw
> development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish?
>

Individual developers can decide whatever they want.  However, as long
as Windows/PostgreSQL is popular, it will be supported regardless of
whatever the core team wants to do.  This is because the community has
access to the source code and that the community will include a large
number of software developers.  But no, I don't see the core team
deciding to remove supported platforms any time soon.  We are not a
centralized commercial enterprise like MySQL, so whatever the community
really wants, they will eventually get.

> I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason.  In fact one of my
> two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that
> PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the
> same boat. So it is good to support many boats.
>
> Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would
> PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows?  If not, I think at this stage I
> can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows
> Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come
> as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations.  I am just
> expanding my varieties.

Why should it matter?  What will happen is that PostgreSQL on Windows
will become commonly used in both development and production
environments.  It won't be fast like on Linux because of fork() overhead
but it will be supported as long as the community wants it.

>
> I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The
> point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it
> for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS
> should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some
> support from some sources, fine.
>
>
> I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil
> PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL
> the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of
> licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The
> company that uses them are up and running; not as if only
> organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or
> Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS? If PostgreSQL cannot thrive
> where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut
> yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not
> come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if
> PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a
> different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do
> often witness many utility *NIX applications do crash on our Mandrake
> server, but not PostgreSQL crashing.

As I said, the core team takes the security of your data very
seriously.  Note that this does not mean that it will nto be supported,
but just that people don't think you should consider doing this.

>

I hope this response is helpful.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

Tope Akinniyi wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I am wondering at this display of extreme Linux mentality being
> displayed by the 'top bras' of the PostgreSQL community.  And I ask,
> are we encouraging Windows use of PostgreSQL at all?

At the moment?  There are some known issues...  Bear in mind that the
Windows port is quite new, and much less tested than on other platforms.

>
> Take a look at tools being rolled out at PgFoundry on daily basis; all
> for Linux except the Windows installer.  I ask myself what is being
> done to encourage PostgreSQL Windows users.  Nothing is available to
> them except the Database and PgAdmin.  No replication tool, no this,
> no that.
>

I would assume that most of the Linux-only tools would work equally well
on AIX, Solaris, *BSD, IRIX, etc.  Not sure what you mean by Linux....

>
> Sorry for this:  Firebird provides equal tools for Linux and Windows
> users.  We are not the one to tell the Windows users whether they need
> them.


Until 8.0, PostgreSQL was not available natively on Windows.  If you
wanted to run it on Windows prior, you had to install it via Cygwin (a
POSIX emulation layer).  So the fact that there are few tools is mostly
due to the newness of the software on that platform.  Give it some time,
and the tools will be ported.

>
> Whether Windows is bad or good; Linux is the angel and Windows the
> devil is not the issue here. PostgreSQL has gone the Windows way and
> must not be shown to be deficient.
>

Again give it some time.

However, as a second point, I would point out that *I* would never run
production databases on Windows.  This is because I don't trust the
platform not to crash and mess up my data, and my data is worth the best
hardware and software.  PostgreSQL on Windows is, however, nice for
developers who want to run it on their development efforts.  But YMMV.
And again, this is not the reason for the dearth of tools, but something
to think about when deploying a solution.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting