Tom Lane wrote:
<snip>
> And, to be blunt, I'm not likely to go out of my way to improve support
> for WinAnything even when we do have a native port. In words of one
> syllable: WinAnything is not, and never will be, a preferred platform
> for Postgres. Accordingly, performance improvements for it are just a
> distraction from our real business; a distraction which plays into the
> hands of Gates & Co. No thank you. I'm okay with providing minimal
> support for those who really want to run toy databases on a toy
> platform. I will *not* buy into trying to make it a non-toy platform.
Understood, and that's ok.
Allowing PostgreSQL to be productively used as best it can be, whereever
it can be, makes sense doesn't it? Especially when the real target here
would be to give existing MS places a lower cost of entry to the
PostgreSQL world.
Financial example :
WinNT/2k/XP costs a few hundred dollars.
MS SQL Server costs a few thousand dollars.
Whenever we displace MS SQL Server, we divert more revenue away from MS
than if we just say "Sorry but we're not happy with making the Windows
port perform in ways that let it compete adequately with MS SQL Server".
We both know the arguments for and against. You're in the "against"
camp, and I'm in the "for" camp.
Personally I'm hoping there are some other PostgreSQL coders around in
the "for" camp too that can assist with this as we're beginning to gain
some good public enterprise level of interest.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
>
> regards, tom lane
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there." - Indira Gandhi