On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 19:59, Gaetano Mendola wrote:
> Greg Copeland wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 09:30, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 02:46:38PM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>fact that checkpoints, vacuum runs and pg_dumps bog down their machines
> >>>to the state where simple queries take several seconds care that much
> >>>for any Win32 port? Do you think it is a good sign for those who have
> >>
> >>Yes. I am one such person, but from the marketing side of things, I
> >>understand perfectly well what failing to deliver on Win32 again will
> >>cost. It's not important to _me_, but that doesn't mean it's
> >>unimportant to the project.
> >>
> >
> >
> > My primary fear about delivering Win32 with all of these other great
> > features is that, IMO, there is a higher level of risk associated with
> > these advanced features. At the same time, this will be the first trial
> > for many Win32 users. Should there be some problems, in general, or
> > worse, specific to Win32 users as it relates to these new features, it
> > could cost some serious Win32/PostgreSQL community points. A troubled
> > release which is experienced by Win32 users is going to be a battle cry
> > for MySQL.
>
> I believe that the very first Win32 native version will be declared "not
> realy ready for production", am I wrong ?
>
Given that the cygwin version is currently labeled as not ready for
production I would say you are right. The truth is that many will never
declare win32 good for production simply because of the OS it runs on,
but we still want to make it as solid as possible.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL