> -----Original Message----- > From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 8:39 AM > To: Dann Corbit; Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? > > > --- Dann Corbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Which feature is requested more than that? > > Not sure how often features are requested and by whom. > However, if you take a look at the TODO list, you'll find > plenty of stuff more important than win32 port. > > > Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of > > market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be > > important: > > SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...) > > DB/2 > > Oracle > > MySQL > > Sybase > > Informix > > Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. > Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but > I'd suspect the picture is the same. They may claim that they > have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick than a > useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users.
I have all of the above database systems installed on the Windows 2000 machine I am typing this message from. DB/2 7.1 Oracle 8.1.7 and 9.2.0.5 MySQL 4.0.12 Sybase Adaptive Server 12.0 Informix Dynamic Server 9.2 (Also SapDB, Firebird server, SQL*Server, and several others that are not running right now) I just use them for development on this machine, but we have literally thousands of customers with those database systems installed on Win32 and used in production. > IMHO, core PostgreSQL development should not be sacrificed > for the sake of win32 port. A typical window-phobic. Thankfully, cooler heads will prevail. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
