Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ow [mailto:oneway_111(at)yahoo(dot)com]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2003 10:39 PM
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne; Greg Stark
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
>
>
>
> --- Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
> >
> > I don't call porting Postgres to run well on something like
> 40% of the
> > world's servers (or whatever it is) "just another port".
>
> Statistics is a tricky thing. IMHO, there are plenty of
> things that are much more important than win32 port.

Which feature is requested more than that?

If you consider the possibility of embedded PostgreSQL, which OS covers
the most desktops in the world, by several orders of magnitude?

Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of
market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be
important:
SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...)
DB/2
Oracle
MySQL
Sybase
Informix

(Answer: none of them)

Maybe they were all mistaken.

At the company where I work (CONNX Solutions Inc.) we spent a giant pile
of money writing a native port of PostgreSQL 7.1.3 because there were no
viable alternatives for what we wanted to do. We would have saved many
tens of thousands of dollars if one were available. Now, I imagine
other companies might also have their interest piqued if a native port
should suddenly appear.