Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>Personally, I find the anti-windows bias that has been shown in this
>thread by some developers to be disappointing. Maybe it sucks to program
>in, and maybe it's not as stable as unix (though I don't put much water
>in that argument anymore), but the fact is there's still a LOT of places
>that are windows shops and a LOT of people who use windows more heavily
>than *nix. More important, the egotism of "If you want to use PostgreSQL
>you better run it on what we tell you to run it on" is certain to turn
>people off of PostgreSQL. It will certainly turn off windows developers
>who might have been interested in working to improve PostgreSQL now that
>it runs on windows.
>
>
Ok--- I will admit to a anti-Windows bias. But at least my bias is
informed. In addition to my former employment at Microsoft, I have
studies both types of OS's in detail. Here are some specific comments I
would make:
1) I do not expect PostgreSQL to *ever* perform as well on Windows as
it does on Linux. This is primarily due to the fundamentally different
emphasis in kernel architecture between UNIX-style and VMS-style
operating systems. Windows server applications which are process-based
are always likely to underperform. Windows applications ported to Linux
are similarly likely to underperform.
2) Windows stability is getting far better, but does still lag behind
that of Linux.
3) I think that it is very likely that you might be legally required to
get CAL's for Windows Server in order to allow the systems to access
PostgreSQL. While this is not enforced by the OS, I don't know whether
the EULA requires it (my guess is that it does).
PostgreSQL on Windows has 2 uses. It is for developers to play around
with, and it is for smaller businesses with few connections to use. One
you need to scale, you will probably have to go to Linux, BSD, etc.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers