Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 17 September 2002 06:36
> To: Christopher Kings-Lynne
> Cc: Robert Treat; Justin Clift; Peter Eisentraut; Tom Lane;
> Curt Sampson; PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
>
>
> Well, let's see if we ever run on native NT4.X and we can
> decide then.
> Actually, don't our Cygnus folks have a problem with moving
> pg_xlog already?

No, because Cygwin knows about shell links.

Whilst I'm here, I'll chuck my $0.02 in:

I use PostgreSQL on Linux for production and XP for development, and am
likely to continue that way. I've been beta testing the native Win32
port of PostgreSQL as Justin has and the latest version is fantastic -
it runs as a service, osdb shows impressive results compared to Cygwin
PostgreSQL on the same system and it's a breeze to install, despite
there being no installer yet.

What I can't understand is the attitude of some people here. Yes,
Microsoft are evil, but the bottom line is, millions of people use
Windows. Just look at the number of downloads for pgAdmin (shown at
http://www.pgadmin.org/downloads/) - the last stable version has clocked
up over 38,000 downloads, the preview I released just a couple of weeks
ago, 2230 at the time of writing. I know from talking to some of the
users that often people download copies for themselves and their
colleagues, so we can probably assume there are actually 40,000+
PostgreSQL users that use Windows reguarly enough to want pgAdmin. What
happens if you add in the pgAccess/Windows users, Tora, or pgExplorer?
How many of these people would want to run PostgreSQL on Windows as
well?

What about the companies out there that have good sysadmins who want to
use PostgreSQL, but manglement that insist on using Windows?

What about situations where a single server is running SQL Server and
other software (such as a middle tier server - as I have on one box
here), and that other software cannot be changed, but SQL could?

I think that ignoring the huge number of people that use windows because
some of us consider it a Mickey Mouse OS is a particuarly bad strategy
if we want to expand our userbase. Windows is not going anywhere soon,
and like it or not, it *is* getting better and better. Our Windows 2000
(and our Beta3/RC1 .Net test Servers) are rock solid and haven't been
rebooted in months) - we get more hardware faults these days, and those
can occur on our Linux or HP-UX boxes just as easily.

Anyway, enough of my rant :-)

Regards, Dave.