Re: RFC: PostgreSQL Add-On Network

On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 21:42, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-07 at 20:36 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:07 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Hackers,
>> >
>> > I've posted a [plan] to implement PGAN][], a CPAN for PostgreSQL extensions. I've tried to closely follow the [CPAN philosophy][] to come up with a plan that requires a minimum-work implementation that builds on the existing PostgreSQL tools and the examples of the [CPAN][] and [JSAN][]. My hope is that it's full of [JFDI][]! I would be very grateful for feedback and suggestions.
>>
>> Whilst the aim is a noble one, glossing over 'it won't work on
>> Windows' which is by far our most popular platform these days
>
> Although I understand your point, this is debatable to the point of a
> pointless point :P. The reason it seems like the most popular is that
> the only way to get the windows version is to download it from .Org/EDB.
> Linux/FreeBSD already has it in their own repositories.

If you count production servers, it's certainly going to be more
Linux/BSD. But if you start counting developer machines, Windows gets
ahead quickly. And then start looking at all the point-of-sales
systems etc that come with an embedded PostgreSQL - the vast majority
of those (unfortunately) run on Windows.

It's not the biggest databases. But it's the most.

And particularly something like this needs to work well on the
developers machines, or things won't get through the door.

> I do believe that we need to support windows, but not everything will.
> That is just the nature of it.

True. But if it's something that's infrastructure, it should work on
all major platforms. This certainly includes Windows.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/