Re: What I would say if someone asked me about no win32

I would tell them to prototype on the cygwin version and port to the
native version when it comes out. I was counting off the days until the
win32 port for 7.4 but (IMO) the developers made the right decision to
delay until the next release. The cygwin version is a drag to install
but should be ok for development purposes.

I used to tell people to use the PeerDirect port but 7.2.1 is missing a
lot of nice features (especially schemas) and that port has some issues
with the WAL which (IMO) make it not very attractive in a production
environment. From what I understand Bruce has resolved these issues in
the official port. 7.4 has some killer features which I think are
under-hyped (for example

John Carmack's mantra regarding the hugely overdue Doom3 project is 'it
will be ready when it's ready'. In software, that's a good motto.

Merlin

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Treat [mailto:xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net]
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2003 6:28 PM
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] What I would say if someone asked me about no
win32

Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
windows support, what gives?

People,

> Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
> windows support, what gives?

My answer:

A. PostgreSQL has a well-deserved reputation for "bulletproof" reliability and
stability, which requires each new patch and plug-in to pass stringent
community testing. The Win32 platform has proved to be more of a challenge
than we anticipated in this regard, and we would rather release our Windows
port late than release a version which might fail in production environments.

But, Bruce, since you're head of the port, wanna comment on this? We're
trying to prepare a "canned" answer for the inevitable questions.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

I ran out of time, just like the PITR guy. Win32 takes tons of time,
and working on the PostgreSQL project itself just doesn't allow enough
time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Josh Berkus wrote:
> People,
>
> > Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
> > windows support, what gives?
>
> My answer:
>
> A. PostgreSQL has a well-deserved reputation for "bulletproof" reliability and
> stability, which requires each new patch and plug-in to pass stringent
> community testing. The Win32 platform has proved to be more of a challenge
> than we anticipated in this regard, and we would rather release our Windows
> port late than release a version which might fail in production environments.
>
> But, Bruce, since you're head of the port, wanna comment on this? We're
> trying to prepare a "canned" answer for the inevitable questions.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> Aglio Database Solutions
> San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

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

The real answer is that we don't have enough full-time folks to work on
these complex features, and we only have one Tom Lane.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> I ran out of time, just like the PITR guy. Win32 takes tons of time,
> and working on the PostgreSQL project itself just doesn't allow enough
> time.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > People,
> >
> > > Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
> > > windows support, what gives?
> >
> > My answer:
> >
> > A. PostgreSQL has a well-deserved reputation for "bulletproof" reliability and
> > stability, which requires each new patch and plug-in to pass stringent
> > community testing. The Win32 platform has proved to be more of a challenge
> > than we anticipated in this regard, and we would rather release our Windows
> > port late than release a version which might fail in production environments.
> >
> > But, Bruce, since you're head of the port, wanna comment on this? We're
> > trying to prepare a "canned" answer for the inevitable questions.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Berkus
> > Aglio Database Solutions
> > San Francisco
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> >
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

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

"As a result of the API differences between the Windows and Unix operating
systems, the changes required to *cleanly* patch the PostgreSQL source
code to compile under Windows proved to be a more daunting task then
originally expected. As a result, we were unable to bring full Win32
support into v7.4, but will continue to work towards this goal, aiming
for integration in v7.5 .. "

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
> I ran out of time, just like the PITR guy. Win32 takes tons of time,
> and working on the PostgreSQL project itself just doesn't allow enough
> time.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > People,
> >
> > > Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
> > > windows support, what gives?
> >
> > My answer:
> >
> > A. PostgreSQL has a well-deserved reputation for "bulletproof" reliability and
> > stability, which requires each new patch and plug-in to pass stringent
> > community testing. The Win32 platform has proved to be more of a challenge
> > than we anticipated in this regard, and we would rather release our Windows
> > port late than release a version which might fail in production environments.
> >
> > But, Bruce, since you're head of the port, wanna comment on this? We're
> > trying to prepare a "canned" answer for the inevitable questions.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Berkus
> > Aglio Database Solutions
> > San Francisco
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> >
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org

Sounds good.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> "As a result of the API differences between the Windows and Unix operating
> systems, the changes required to *cleanly* patch the PostgreSQL source
> code to compile under Windows proved to be a more daunting task then
> originally expected. As a result, we were unable to bring full Win32
> support into v7.4, but will continue to work towards this goal, aiming
> for integration in v7.5 .. "
>
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > I ran out of time, just like the PITR guy. Win32 takes tons of time,
> > and working on the PostgreSQL project itself just doesn't allow enough
> > time.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > People,
> > >
> > > > Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
> > > > windows support, what gives?
> > >
> > > My answer:
> > >
> > > A. PostgreSQL has a well-deserved reputation for "bulletproof" reliability and
> > > stability, which requires each new patch and plug-in to pass stringent
> > > community testing. The Win32 platform has proved to be more of a challenge
> > > than we anticipated in this regard, and we would rather release our Windows
> > > port late than release a version which might fail in production environments.
> > >
> > > But, Bruce, since you're head of the port, wanna comment on this? We're
> > > trying to prepare a "canned" answer for the inevitable questions.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Josh Berkus
> > > Aglio Database Solutions
> > > San Francisco
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> > pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> >
>
> Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
> Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
>

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> I ran out of time, just like the PITR guy. Win32 takes tons of time,
> and working on the PostgreSQL project itself just doesn't allow enough
> time.

It is also partly my fault, as I failed on the first attempt to redo the
fork+exec part for Bruce, then got a bit frustrated over things not to
be discussed publicly and didn't give it much attention, finally I had a
ton of other things with higher priority after that. This is not an
excuse, it's life, sorry.

What really bugs me about the entire Win32 port discussion is something
else. One of my activities at PeerDirect was to extract out the 7.2.1
based Win32 port and contribute it as a patch. That patch went out on
January 20, 2003. Applied to a 7.2.1 tree, it compiled under MS VC++ 6.0
and produced a fully running native Win32 PostgreSQL. So far for what
was available in January.

Now more than half a year later we have no evidence that there will be
qualified and capable maintainers for any Win32 port. Some of the main
developers who implement big features and do the kind of work that can
break a port easily, especially one that serves a tremendeously
different API, have explicitly waved off any interest in Win32 support
at all. This is a dangerous combination.

Bruce and I had discussed this issue briefly and he is of course right
that this sort of task requires deep PostgreSQL and Win32 knowledge,
both of which takes time to build up. It's the kind of task that
requires Core developer help to have any chance. Where I disagree by now
is the definition of "help". Just doing the hard parts is not the kind
of help needed here. If we do not get people growing into this position
right now, there will be a gap between when the port is once done and
when others with real Win32 interest will take over the duties. Will
there ever be anyone willing to take over an already broken port? And I
am sure if nobody is really committed on maintaining this port, it'll be
broken in a few months.

At this point I (personally) would rather not have a Win32 port at all,
because all it is buying us under these circumstances will be bad
reputation. We have come a long way and the fact that people do not
reevaluate things is the reason they still "know" that PostgreSQL is
slow and instable. Adding a bad maintained Win32 port is worse than not
supporting Win32 at all. The latter might be missing an important
platform, the former will build up long lasting bad reputation.

Jan

>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> People,
>>
>> > Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
>> > windows support, what gives?
>>
>> My answer:
>>
>> A. PostgreSQL has a well-deserved reputation for "bulletproof" reliability and
>> stability, which requires each new patch and plug-in to pass stringent
>> community testing. The Win32 platform has proved to be more of a challenge
>> than we anticipated in this regard, and we would rather release our Windows
>> port late than release a version which might fail in production environments.
>>
>> But, Bruce, since you're head of the port, wanna comment on this? We're
>> trying to prepare a "canned" answer for the inevitable questions.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Berkus
>> Aglio Database Solutions
>> San Francisco
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>
>

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

Jan is right that we need Win32 maintainers. I want to set up a few
things to grow the group, just like Jan did when he added foreign keys:

o mailing list
o cvs branch
o web page

I haven't done it yet, because I wanted to get into beta, and have
pgindent run, so any change to the branch will cleanly merge. Now that
pgindent is done, I will start on that list shortly to grow a dedicated
group to get things moving.

I think I have made some progress because PostgreSQL now compiles on
MinGW. It is just signals and fork/exec that are left. We will have
cases of fork/exec breaking in the future due to changes in the code,
but I assume we will enough folks involved in the port at that point
that we can get them fixed quickly.

I think the marketing opportunity for Win32 is just too important. I am
no Win32 fan myself either, but we have to be on the platform to show
folks how good we are.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I ran out of time, just like the PITR guy. Win32 takes tons of time,
> > and working on the PostgreSQL project itself just doesn't allow enough
> > time.
>
> It is also partly my fault, as I failed on the first attempt to redo the
> fork+exec part for Bruce, then got a bit frustrated over things not to
> be discussed publicly and didn't give it much attention, finally I had a
> ton of other things with higher priority after that. This is not an
> excuse, it's life, sorry.
>
> What really bugs me about the entire Win32 port discussion is something
> else. One of my activities at PeerDirect was to extract out the 7.2.1
> based Win32 port and contribute it as a patch. That patch went out on
> January 20, 2003. Applied to a 7.2.1 tree, it compiled under MS VC++ 6.0
> and produced a fully running native Win32 PostgreSQL. So far for what
> was available in January.
>
> Now more than half a year later we have no evidence that there will be
> qualified and capable maintainers for any Win32 port. Some of the main
> developers who implement big features and do the kind of work that can
> break a port easily, especially one that serves a tremendeously
> different API, have explicitly waved off any interest in Win32 support
> at all. This is a dangerous combination.
>
> Bruce and I had discussed this issue briefly and he is of course right
> that this sort of task requires deep PostgreSQL and Win32 knowledge,
> both of which takes time to build up. It's the kind of task that
> requires Core developer help to have any chance. Where I disagree by now
> is the definition of "help". Just doing the hard parts is not the kind
> of help needed here. If we do not get people growing into this position
> right now, there will be a gap between when the port is once done and
> when others with real Win32 interest will take over the duties. Will
> there ever be anyone willing to take over an already broken port? And I
> am sure if nobody is really committed on maintaining this port, it'll be
> broken in a few months.
>
> At this point I (personally) would rather not have a Win32 port at all,
> because all it is buying us under these circumstances will be bad
> reputation. We have come a long way and the fact that people do not
> reevaluate things is the reason they still "know" that PostgreSQL is
> slow and instable. Adding a bad maintained Win32 port is worse than not
> supporting Win32 at all. The latter might be missing an important
> platform, the former will build up long lasting bad reputation.
>
>
> Jan
>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> People,
> >>
> >> > Q. Hey, I read in a bunch of places that 7.4 was going to have native
> >> > windows support, what gives?
> >>
> >> My answer:
> >>
> >> A. PostgreSQL has a well-deserved reputation for "bulletproof" reliability and
> >> stability, which requires each new patch and plug-in to pass stringent
> >> community testing. The Win32 platform has proved to be more of a challenge
> >> than we anticipated in this regard, and we would rather release our Windows
> >> port late than release a version which might fail in production environments.
> >>
> >> But, Bruce, since you're head of the port, wanna comment on this? We're
> >> trying to prepare a "canned" answer for the inevitable questions.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Josh Berkus
> >> Aglio Database Solutions
> >> San Francisco
> >>
> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> #======================================================================#
> # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
> # Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
> #================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

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

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

>
> Jan is right that we need Win32 maintainers. I want to set up a few
> things to grow the group, just like Jan did when he added foreign keys:
>
> o mailing list

pgsql-hackers-win32?

> o cvs branch

did we do this for foreign keys? I thought we'd always avoided doing that
...

Folks,

There's been a major backbone outage in the internet, I think due to the RPC
worm. As a result, us folks hosted on the West Coast aren't getting any
e-mail from the PGSQL lists.

If it's urgent, please e-mail me directly.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

The AC power grid in the Northeast of the United States has failed
[Thursday, August 14, 2003].

douglas

Josh Berkus wrote:

>Folks,
>
>There's been a major backbone outage in the internet, I think due to the RPC
>worm. As a result, us folks hosted on the West Coast aren't getting any
>e-mail from the PGSQL lists.
>
>If it's urgent, please e-mail me directly.
>
>
>

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >
> > Jan is right that we need Win32 maintainers. I want to set up a few
> > things to grow the group, just like Jan did when he added foreign keys:
> >
> > o mailing list
>
> pgsql-hackers-win32?

Good.

> > o cvs branch
>
> did we do this for foreign keys? I thought we'd always avoided doing that
> ...

Right. I don't think we did it for foreign keys, but I think we will
need it so multiple people can work and submit patches. I could just
keep a separate Win32 tree here and publish the diffs against current
CVS, if that is better. I can put it up on ftp, so, yea, we don't need
it, and it keeps us honest about tracking win32. What it doesn't do is
to allow folks to get cvs changes to a tree they have already modified.

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

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jan is right that we need Win32 maintainers. I want to set up a few
> > > things to grow the group, just like Jan did when he added foreign keys:
> > >
> > > o mailing list
> >
> > pgsql-hackers-win32?
>
> Good.

Done ... I put you as owner of it, but its also listed when I go through
moderated postings ...

> > did we do this for foreign keys? I thought we'd always avoided doing that
> > ...
>
> Right. I don't think we did it for foreign keys, but I think we will
> need it so multiple people can work and submit patches. I could just
> keep a separate Win32 tree here and publish the diffs against current
> CVS, if that is better. I can put it up on ftp, so, yea, we don't need
> it, and it keeps us honest about tracking win32. What it doesn't do is
> to allow folks to get cvs changes to a tree they have already modified.

I have no problems with us creating a branch, and it would make it easy
for anyone to pull things down ... its also keeps all the histories
available centrally ...

Can I suggest a branch at v7.3, so that those working on the win32 have a
'stable branch' to base it off of, and then we can pull things up in v7.4
and -HEAD as they become available?

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jan is right that we need Win32 maintainers. I want to set up a few
> > > > things to grow the group, just like Jan did when he added foreign keys:
> > > >
> > > > o mailing list
> > >
> > > pgsql-hackers-win32?
> >
> > Good.
>
> Done ... I put you as owner of it, but its also listed when I go through
> moderated postings ...
>
> > > did we do this for foreign keys? I thought we'd always avoided doing that
> > > ...
> >
> > Right. I don't think we did it for foreign keys, but I think we will
> > need it so multiple people can work and submit patches. I could just
> > keep a separate Win32 tree here and publish the diffs against current
> > CVS, if that is better. I can put it up on ftp, so, yea, we don't need
> > it, and it keeps us honest about tracking win32. What it doesn't do is
> > to allow folks to get cvs changes to a tree they have already modified.
>
> I have no problems with us creating a branch, and it would make it easy
> for anyone to pull things down ... its also keeps all the histories
> available centrally ...
>
> Can I suggest a branch at v7.3, so that those working on the win32 have a
> 'stable branch' to base it off of, and then we can pull things up in v7.4
> and -HEAD as they become available?

Only current CVS has my Win32 change I already made. I think it will
have to be against current.

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

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Only current CVS has my Win32 change I already made. I think it will
> have to be against current.

'K, should we wait until v7.4 is branched, or does it matter? I'm up for
doing it right now, since we aren't looking for massive stability of that
branch, only to get the win32 port working to be merged back up into -HEAD
after ...

The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Only current CVS has my Win32 change I already made. I think it will
> > have to be against current.
>
> 'K, should we wait until v7.4 is branched, or does it matter? I'm up for
> doing it right now, since we aren't looking for massive stability of that
> branch, only to get the win32 port working to be merged back up into -HEAD
> after ...

Might as well branch now --- it will only last until we start 7.5, at
which point I will roll all those changes into CVS anyway. I don't
expect people to be doing anything on the branch except compiles and
regression tests. I don't play on actually doing any release based on
the branch, for instance.

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

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Might as well branch now --- it will only last until we start 7.5, at
> which point I will roll all those changes into CVS anyway. I don't
> expect people to be doing anything on the branch except compiles and
> regression tests. I don't play on actually doing any release based on
> the branch, for instance.

cvs -q checkout -rWIN32_DEV -P pgsql

Have a field day :)

Bruce Momjian wrote:

> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Jan is right that we need Win32 maintainers. I want to set up a few
>> > things to grow the group, just like Jan did when he added foreign keys:
>> >
>> > o mailing list
>>
>> pgsql-hackers-win32?
>
> Good.
>
>> > o cvs branch
>>
>> did we do this for foreign keys? I thought we'd always avoided doing that
>> ...
>
> Right. I don't think we did it for foreign keys, but I think we will
> need it so multiple people can work and submit patches. I could just
> keep a separate Win32 tree here and publish the diffs against current
> CVS, if that is better. I can put it up on ftp, so, yea, we don't need
> it, and it keeps us honest about tracking win32. What it doesn't do is
> to allow folks to get cvs changes to a tree they have already modified.

We didn't do it for foreign keys because FK was a comparably "tiny"
project, considering the amount of base code that needed to be touched
(basically it's been building the deferred trigger queue and the
snapshot override, from there it all took place in the ri_trigger.c).

Win32 is different, and therefore has different administrative needs.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

> At this point I (personally) would rather not have a Win32 port at all,
> because all it is buying us under these circumstances will be bad
> reputation. We have come a long way and the fact that people do not
> reevaluate things is the reason they still "know" that PostgreSQL is
> slow and instable. Adding a bad maintained Win32 port is worse than not
> supporting Win32 at all. The latter might be missing an important
> platform, the former will build up long lasting bad reputation.

Maybe we could replace Vadim (if he was core) with a core Win32 person...?

Chris

> I think I have made some progress because PostgreSQL now compiles on
> MinGW. It is just signals and fork/exec that are left. We will have
> cases of fork/exec breaking in the future due to changes in the code,
> but I assume we will enough folks involved in the port at that point
> that we can get them fixed quickly.
>
> I think the marketing opportunity for Win32 is just too important. I am
> no Win32 fan myself either, but we have to be on the platform to show
> folks how good we are.

Well after the pain I've just been thru getting cygwin postgres to work on
my machine I'm all in favour of Win32 version. I'll help compile and test
and everything as well, so long as I don't have to buy MS Vis Studio.

(FreeBSD won't install on my new Serial ATA machine :( )

Chris