Re: [BUGS] postgresql 8.0b1 Win32 observations

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> mallah(at)trade-india(dot)com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi Folks,
>>>
>>> I installed postgresql8.0b1 a fews days back.
>>> I am listing the issues which i came across
>>> these many be already known issues or may not
>>> be bugs.
>>>
>>> 1. Automatic convertion to NTFS.
>>>
>>> Many NT based windows installation may not
>>> have formatted the drive with NTFS , i think
>>> the installer may assist or at leaset suggest
>>> that converting from fat --> ntfs is a snap.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, installer issue? I don't think we should have the postmaster
>> complain in its logs, right?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I've seen contrary opinions, but I don't see how anybody could
> contemplate running *any* server on FAT. But then, people use Notepad
> to write programs, too.
>
> The installer should complain, but I guess that's it.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

I don't know how anyone could run a server on windows, but I do know I
run my workstation on windows and I DO NOT use NTFS, for various
reasons, mostly because *nix has better fat support and I do dualboot my
workstation. What I would like to see is eiter 1. An installer that lets
u install on fat. OR 2. a zipped binary distro of the windows version so
i can happily run on fat, however that seems to have stopped which means
I have to compile it myself which is a hassle :/ I been using pgsql on
windows for ages now. For along time it was an old 7.1 or 7.2 port that
i was happy with, then I started using the 7.5 port even before pg_ctl
worked, and now I am stuck cos of this installer which is fine and well
and will make it easier for the mysql/php generation to get pgsql
running on windows, but I really have no problems with a zipped binary
distro, its what i always used. So what I am asking is can we please
have a zipped binary distro or an installer that lets u install on fat.
If NTFS checking gets coded into initdb.exe (as was suggested in the
initdb crash thread) and I end up having to take it of the out of the
source and build it myself just to run on FAT, then cos forcing people
to run on NTFS is just strong arm tactics, there is nothing wrong with
running on FAT in a development enviroment.