>
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > > I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
>> running
>> > > those should know better than to use Windows, and if they do not,
>> I'll
>> > > be happy to tell them so.
>
> You
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks running
> > > those should know better than to use Windows, and if they do not, I'll
> > > be happy to tell them so.
You know, it makes
>>
>> Having been a Windows developer since version 1.03, with DOS
>> and CP/M before that, I can say with complete authority that
>> most Windows developers are not "good." The worst I've seen
>> is Charles Petzold, and he sets the bar.
>
> Charles Petzold is a decent programmer. I have read his
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I am not a wide eyed passionate Linux zealot. Like my support
for John Kerry, I gladly choose the better side of mediocrity over extream
evil, it is nothing more than pure practicality.
I don't like dubya either, but he isn't extreme evil. This sort of
argum
D]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Momjian; Greg
> > Stark; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
> >
> >
> > > "Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> I expect that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>
> >> We should provide people with the right tools, true, but we
> >> are bound by our conscience to inform them about Windows' failures.
> >
> > It must be nice to be young and still see everything as black and white
> > with no shades of gray.
>
> I wouldn't call
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 2:41 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
[snip]
> Microsoft has
>>
>> We should provide people with the right tools, true, but we
>> are bound by our conscience to inform them about Windows' failures.
>
> It must be nice to be young and still see everything as black and white
> with no shades of gray.
I wouldn't call 41 very young.
> For those who think that
reSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: RE: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
>
>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:39 AM
> >> To: Tom Lane
> >>
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
>>
>>
>> > "Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
>> times as many
reSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
>
>
> > "Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten
> times as many
> >> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as
> "Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many
>> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors
>
> I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
> running those should know better
Tom Lane wrote:
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
running those should kn
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many
> PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors
I surely hope not. Especially not multi-gig databases. The folks
running those should know better than to u
]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
>
>
>
> > First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular "feature."
> Even Windows
> > supports what would be needed. Second of all, PostgreSQL
> will still
>
> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
>
>> To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
>> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
>> I think Win2000 or XP wo
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
>> symlinks.
> Agreed, but are we going to support non-tablespace installs? I wasn't
> sure that was an option.
A setup containing only the default tablespace cannot
[ lots of opinions about depending on symlinks for tablespaces ]
One thing that I think hasn't been noted in this thread is that our
initial implementation won't bind us forever. If it becomes clear that
a symlink-based implementation has real problems, we can change it.
But if we spend extra eff
"Thomas Swan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> Apparently, I have failed tremendously in addressing a concern. The
> question is does PostgreSQL need to rely on symlinks and will that
> dependency introduce problems?
>
> There is an active win32 port underway (see
Quoting Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> > My idea for platforms that don't support symlinks would be to simply
> create
> > a tblspaceoid directory inplace instead of the symlink (maybe throw a
> warning).
> > My feeling is, that using the same syntax on such
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Thomas Swan wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> My feeling is that we need not suppor
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
>
> > First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular "feature." Even Windows
> > supports what would be needed. Second of all, PostgreSQL will still
> > run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
> > PostgreSQL will still run. Since we are al
Thomas Swan wrote:
> >The fact of the matter is that PostgreSQL runs better on some
> >platforms than others, and it probably always will. Heck, as of
> >today, PostgreSQL is officially supported on the Gamecube. Does that
> >mean that the PostgreSQL developers should limit themselves to the
> >f
> First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular "feature." Even Windows
> supports what would be needed. Second of all, PostgreSQL will still
> run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
> PostgreSQL will still run. Since we are all using PostgreSQL without
My idea for pla
On Friday 05 March 2004 07:51, Thomas Swan wrote:
>
> Apparently, I have failed tremendously in addressing a concern. The
> question is does PostgreSQL need to rely on symlinks and will that
> dependency introduce problems?
>
> There is an active win32 port underway (see this mailing list). One
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
>>> symlinks.
>>> >
>>> >> To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
>>> >> http://www.s
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
>> symlinks.
>> >
>> >> To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
>> >> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.sh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
> symlinks.
> >
> >> To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
> >>http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#jun
> "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
>
>> To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
>> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
>> I think Win2000 or XP woul
> >To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
> > http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
> >
> >
> >
>
> I don't think we could use this s/w though, unless the author is
> prepared to relicense it. I'm sure implementing a clean room
> version of
> the relevan
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
I don't think we could use this s/w though, unless the author is
prepared to relicense it. I'm sure implementing a clean room version of
the
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
>>> symlinks.
> To create symlinked directories on Win2k NTFS see:
> http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/misc.shtml#junction
> I think Win2000 or XP would be a
> > > I just checked from the MinGW console and I see:
> > > [snip]
> > > It accepts ln -s, but does nothing with it.
> >
> > And even if it had worked, it wouldn't really matter, since
> we don't
> > actually want to *run* the system under MinGW/msys, just build it.
> >
> > I think the idea o
Claudio Natoli wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > I just checked from the MinGW console and I see:
> > [snip]
> > It accepts ln -s, but does nothing with it.
>
> And even if it had worked, it wouldn't really matter, since we don't
> actually want to *run* the system under MinGW/msys, just build
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
> >> symlinks.
>
> > Agreed, but are we going to support non-tablespace installs? I wasn't
> > sure that was an option.
>
> A setup containing o
> > > For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
> > > store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
> > > should cache those lookups.
> >
> > My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
> > symlinks.
To create symlink
Gavin Sherry wrote:
> I'm going to focus on implementing this on the system(s) I'm used to
> developing on (ie, those which support symlinks). Once that is done, I'll
> talk with the Win32 guys about what, if anything, we can do about getting
> this to work on Win32 (and possibly other non-symlin
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
> > store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
> > should cache those lookups.
>
> My feeling is that we need not
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
> > store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
> > should cache those lookups.
>
> My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For tablespaces on OS's that don't support it, I think we will have to
> store the path name in the file and read it via the backend. Somehow we
> should cache those lookups.
My feeling is that we need not support tablespaces on OS's without
symlinks.
41 matches
Mail list logo
