Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shridhar Daithankar
> [mailto:shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in]
> Sent: 17 September 2002 09:30
> To: Pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc: Pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
>
>
> On 17 Sep 2002 at 16:11, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>
> But I disagree. History says that nobody can compete with
> microsoft on
> microsoft platform. Postgres will not be competing with
> either SQL Server or
> access. It would remain as toy database..

Like Oracle?

> Let's leave it. The main point to focus postgres on unix is
> not only because
> unix is proven/known as robust and scalable, but unix is much
> more standard to
> support across multiple OS. The amount with which windows
> differs from unices
> on API level, any serious efforts to make postgresql good
> enough on windows
> whould be a mammoth task.

Maybe, but it's pretty much there now. The beta Win32 native port has
been performing excellently in the tests I've been able to throw at it,
certainly better than the Cygwin port.

> I haven't tried either port of postgres on windows but I
> would not bet on any
> of them.

The thing I wouldn't bet on is not the quality of the code produced by
the developers here, but Windows. Yes, it runs great here at the moment,
and has done for a while now but there's no guarantee that a new release
won't have a nasty bug. But that applies to the SQL user as well though.
Or for that matter the user of *any* other OS...

> There are limits as what postgresql can do on windows and
> probably postgresql
> development team can't do much about many of them..

The only real issue afaik with the current beta is that you can only run
one instance on a single server. That is the case with SQL Server as
well of course.

> No offense to anybody.. just some opinions..
>

Likewise.

Regards, Dave.