On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 10:53:55AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 2025-04-28 Mo 4:53 PM, Mark Woodward wrote: > > What are the economics of this? I used PostgreSQL and Cygwin 25 years > > ago and am amazed it is still a thing. > > How much effort is it to support PostgreSQL on Cygwin? > > How many actual users are using PostgreSQL on cygwin in production? (I > > should hope none!) > > > > I would say it is something that should be announced as "deprecated" and > > see how many people complain, my bet no one will really care. Cygwin was > > a phenomenal hack in its day but I believe that those days have passed. > > > > Please don't top-post on PostgreSQL lists. > > I don't see it as our role to pass judgements like this on what people use. > While Cygwin exists it's not our province to deprecate its use. If the > maintenance effort were onerous I might be willing to relook at our support > for it, but the simple answer to your first question is that the maintenance > effort is close to zero. As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, even if > the server has limited use, the Cygwin psql client is nicer to use on > Windows than the native build, reason enough to keep it going, at least > until we improve the native build. > > > cheers > andrew > -- > Andrew Dunstan > EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
+1 I also have known of environments where Cygwin was an allowed application and native Windows applications were severely restricted. Go figure. Regards, Ken
