From: | Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz> |
---|---|
To: | mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How much work is a native Windows application? |
Date: | 2002-05-09 07:25:04 |
Message-ID: | 20020509092503.A16905@zf.jcu.cz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 01:16:01PM -0400, mlw wrote:
> I mentioned in another thread, Windows does not support "fork()." PostgreSQL
> seems irrevocably tied to using fork(). Without a drastic rewrite of how
> postmaster works, I don't see a way to make a pure Windows version.
I watch this discussion and only one question is still in my head:
how much people use Windows for server side part of stable application
based Oracle or DB2? Why my employer spend a lot of money with
SGI cluster + IRIX?
_IMHO_ if you want support Windows, please, write good tools for admins,
DB designers and developers (forms?). The server is really not a problem if
you think about real DB application. There is more important things in our
TODO than support GUI-OS for server running... (IMHO:-)
Karel
--
Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
http://home.zf.jcu.cz/~zakkr/
C, PostgreSQL, PHP, WWW, http://docs.linux.cz, http://mape.jcu.cz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2002-05-09 07:34:06 | Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2002-05-09 07:12:04 | Re: OK, lets talk portability. |