Tom Lane wrote:
> Anony Mous <A.Mous@shaw.ca> writes:
> > The reality of my situation is that the MS SQL Server may only reside on the
> > same machine (Win2K server) until all data has been transferred from it to
> > postgres, and then for maybe a month after that. Beyond that, postgres will
> > be the only RDBMS on the box. It is for the transitional time where the
> > concerns were raised. I am stuck, however, to running on top of a Win OS at
> > the moment.
>
> Hmm... I had taken your initial post to mean that you intended to run an
> experimental Postgres server on the same box as your production server.
> If you mean you intend to transition to using PG-on-Cygwin-on-Windows
> as a production server, well, I don't think anyone around here will
> recommend that as a good idea. That assemblage is not stable enough to
> qualify as a production-grade database (bearing in mind that database
> geeks have very high standards for "production grade" reliability).
> You really ought to reconsider this.
>
> In a year or three we may think that the currently-in-progress native
> Windows port is stable enough to be used for production. But the
> Cygwin port has never been intended as anything except a playpen for
> application authors who wanted to write and test SQL code on their
> Windows laptops.
Though that is Tom's opinion, I think the community opinion is that
users should determine for themselves whether Cygwin or the upcoming
native Win32 port are ready for production use.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073