Re: Windows - why not?

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 05:43:05PM +0300, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
> > > Note that in spite of the last sentence, there is active work being
> > > done on a native Windows port, AFAIK.
> >
> > Who's doig that? Developers or other people?
>
> I believe one of the core developers is working on it, among other
> people. Check out the archives for -hackers for all the discussion.

That would be me.

>
> > I do never want to see a Windos port of PostgreSQL!
>
> a. Why? What difference could it make to you? No-one is
> compelling you to use it.
> b. Welcome to the free software world -- people will work on
> whatever they like. (That isn't to say that a nasty bunch of
> compromises should be made in PostgreSQL just to support Windows; but
> I have every confidence in the sound programming sensibilities of the
> core developers -- and they'd be the ones making such a decision.)

There will be only negligible changes to PostgreSQL on UNIX. Namely that
all locations in shared memory will be identified by offsets instead of
pointers again (has been that way when we got the code from Berkeley and
braking it was a bad idea IMHO). And if he doesn't like it, he allways
has the option to look the other way.

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 #