> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 07:22, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > But it's not /nearly/ that straightforward.
>> If you look at the downloads that MySQL AB provides, they point you
>> to a link that says "Windows binaries use the Cygwin library."
>> Which apparently means that this "feature" is not actually a feature.
>> Unlike PostgreSQL, which "is run under the Cygwin emulation," MySQL
>> runs as a native Windows application (with Cygwin emulation).
>> Apparently those are not at all the same thing, even though they are
>> both using Cygwin...
> I'm confused as to whether you are being sarcastic or truly seem to
> think there is a distinction here. Simple question, does MySQL require
> the cygwin dll's (or statically linked to) to run?
I don't know if there's a distinction; read in whatever sarcasm is
deserved by the reality of things.
> If the answer is yes, then there is little question that they are as
> "emulated" as is the current PostgreSQL/Win32 effort.
Just so. If the answer is yes, then the MySQL folk are claiming an
advantage that has no reality to it, in effect, "We aren't using Cygwin
emulation, so we're better... (Whoops, we're actually /using/ Cygwin
> Care to expand on exactly what you believe the distinction is? ...or
> did I miss the humor boat? :(
I'm making the generous assumption that since /they/ claim that there is
some distinction, that there perhaps is one.
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@cbbrowne.com")
"All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory..."
-- Larry Wall
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: wade||Date: 2003-01-31 22:37:00|
|Subject: POSIX regex performance bug in 7.3 Vs. 7.2|
|Previous:||From: Don Bowman||Date: 2003-01-31 21:12:38|
|Subject: not using index for select min(...)|