> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > We support WIn95/98 clients, not servers.
> I thought we did have a cygwin-based server port? If not, there's
> a heckuva lot of useless "PORTNAME=win" conditional compilation in
> the backend.
> Mind you, I don't think any sane dbadmin would use Windoze as a
> platform for a mission-critical application, regardless of database
> engine choice. So the cygwin port is pretty much a toy IMHO.
> If MySQL wants to have the toy-application market segment, they're
> welcome to it.
We support servers on NT, but not on Win95/98. Cygwin supports both,
but the Win95/98 has missing features that we need. People have asked
about it, and they have said they were going to try Win95/98 and report
back on the problems they had, but no one has. I assume they got lots
of "unimplemented" messages from Cygwin and gave up.
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Robert J. Sprawls||Date: 2000-05-30 06:13:48|
|Subject: New behavior in 7.0|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-05-30 04:47:39|
|Subject: Re: Postgresql usage clip. |