Re: [HACKERS] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

Dave Page wrote:

>Right, but not having the luxury of time travel (wasn't that removed in
>Postgres95? ;-) ) we can only go by what the majority think. We won't
>know if it's actually right unless we try it.
>
>We could run a survey saying 'would you use PostgreSQL on win32', but
>the chances are that the vast majority of potential win32 users would
>not visit the site to answer that until it became widely know that we do
>support win32, by which time of course it's all a bit moot.
>
>Unless of course, you have other stats that prove that win32 support is
>uninteresting to most people and potential users?
>
>Regards, Dave.
>
>
I'm sorry if I'm being alow here - is there any problem with running a
production server on cygwin's postgresql? Is the cygwin port of lesser
quality, or otherwise inferior?

I understand that the installation is a bit awkward for cygwin. I
somehow don't see that as too much of a problem. As for usage - RedHat
guidelines clearly state that OSI approved licensed programs will not be
considered by them derived work of the cygwin dll (the one who's GPLness
caused the original discussion). This, aside from the question of
whether they have any claim on Posix utilities anyhow, or whether a
commercial application using PGSQL should be considered derived work of
it, mean to me that there is no problem in distributing a commercial app
that uses Cygwin PostgreSQL.

Shachar

--
Shachar Shemesh
Open Source integration consultant
Home page & resume - http://www.shemesh.biz/