Thread: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
> > I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a > > production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser > > quality, or otherwise inferior? > > Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) > always worse perfomance when we emulate something... and using Cygwin we > are emulating U*nix... Absolutely. The DB throughput available to our application with postgresql under cygwin is about 1/3 of what we get under Linux with a similar spec machine/config. That, and, more importantly, the odd spurious cygipc lock up, precludes our use of postgresql/cygwin in a production setting. And not having postgresql available on all our target platforms (which includes Windows) precludes the use of it at all, as we desire a single DB solution. I don't imagine we are the only ones in this situation (and to all those who see a Windows port as "uninteresting", please keep this in mind). Hopefully, we can change this situation soon... Cheers, Claudio --- Certain disclaimers and policies apply to all email sent from Memetrics. For the full text of these disclaimers and policies see <a href="http://www.memetrics.com/emailpolicy.html">http://www.memetrics.com/em ailpolicy.html</a>
Claudio Natoli wrote: >>>I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a >>>production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser >>>quality, or otherwise inferior? >>> >>> >>Performance, performance, perfomance... and perfomance... it is (almost) >>always worse perfomance when we emulate something... and using Cygwin we >> are emulating U*nix... >> >> > >Absolutely. The DB throughput available to our application with postgresql >under cygwin is about 1/3 of what we get under Linux with a similar spec >machine/config. > >That, and, more importantly, the odd spurious cygipc lock up, precludes our >use of postgresql/cygwin in a production setting. And not having postgresql >available on all our target platforms (which includes Windows) precludes the >use of it at all, as we desire a single DB solution. I don't imagine we are >the only ones in this situation (and to all those who see a Windows port as >"uninteresting", please keep this in mind). > You are far from alone. And there's one other factor: most large enterprises have quite strict policies about what can be installed on their data center servers. Getting Cygwin past those policies would often be difficult. That factor alone was enough to make my product manager rule Postgres out as a solution that we would bundle with our software. > >Hopefully, we can change this situation soon... > > > Right. Here's the situation as I see it: . there have been lots of requests for a native Win32 port . this is important to some people and not important to others . the decision has long ago been made to do it, and some work has been done, and more is being done Isn't it time to move on? As for release numbering, ISTM that is not fundamentally very important. At my former company we had code names for branches and decided release names/numbers near release time in accordance with marketing requirements. Let's not get hung up on nominalism. A release number is just a tag and we can call it whatever seems good at the time. cheers andrew
Uz.ytkownik Andrew Dunstan napisa?: > > > Claudio Natoli wrote: > As for release numbering, ISTM that is not fundamentally very important. > At my former company we had code names for branches and decided release > names/numbers near release time in accordance with marketing > requirements. Let's not get hung up on nominalism. A release number is > just a tag and we can call it whatever seems good at the time. Maybe it's a good time to think about PostgreSQL's marketing strategy & identity. Maybe this great DBMS should be changed in all areas - not only in technical related fields ? ML
Marek, > Maybe it's a good time to think about PostgreSQL's marketing strategy & > identity. Maybe this great DBMS should be changed in all areas - not > only in technical related fields ? If your interest is "marketing" PostgreSQL, please join the Advocacy list. That goes for anyone on this list who is interested in PostgreSQL Advocacy from whatever perspective, including if you want us to stop doing it. It's an open list ... come join! -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco