Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I am more and more coming to the conclusion that we should either remove
> >>NT4 as a supported platform, or at least surround it with very
> >>significant caveats. M$ is about to end the last remaining bit of
> >>support for it, and has already stopped publishing non-security fixes.
> >>
> >>It looks like there are lots of legacy installations still out there
> >>(heck, I see lots of RH7.3 and it's also out of support).
> >>
> >>But there isn't any legacy native W32 Postgres, so we would not be
> >>affecting any legacy users by not supporting NT4.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What is the downside of supporting NT4 if we can?
> >
> >
> >
>
> It's that "if" I am concerned about. I think Dave and Merlin have just
> showed us that, in addition to the eventlog limitations, there are
> enough other reasons to say we really can't.
>
> As for Andreas' point about people wanting to try PostgreSQL out on
> low-cost platforms, if they need Windows they can use Cygwin still, and
> otherwise they can use Linux or FreeBSD.
>
> The point is that we have limited resources, and should not strain them
> trying to support a platform that is itself unsupported and that makes
> life difficult/impossible for us. If we had legacy users it might be a
> different story.
I guess I am waiting for someone to report it doesn't work on NT4 SP4.
How do we know it doesn't work?
--
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