Hello,
Well it of course depends on what you are doing. Traditionally I would
say, "Are you nuts?" but it really depends
on what you are doing. It is all about risk... if PostgreSQL freaks out
and takes out the machine, what will happen
to the MS SQL server? What about cost associated with downtime?
The same goes for if the MS SQL server takes out the machine? How
important is what PostgreSQL is doing?
Considering you could put together a box that will outperform
PostgreSQL/Cgwin running Linux for about 700 bucks.
Why not just get a new machine and not risk the exposure?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Anony Mous wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We've got some clients that are concerned about running Postgresql 7.3.4 on
>a Win2k Server box, alongside MS SQL Server. I've been running pg on my XP
>machines for a long time now (with cygwin) and never had any sort of
>problem. The db is fast and stable.
>
>Does anyone have any experience that would give some weight to our client's
>concerns? Would there be any potential conflict between the postmaster and
>MS SQL Server? Your experience and advice would be greatly appreciated.
>
>-Peter
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL