There are certainly cygwin-users trying out PostgreSQL on cygwin on WinXX. If the newest cygwin-version will suddenly stop working under WinXX, they will not be happy.
I've given consideration to the argument that you can no longer take data-directories from the cygwin-version to the native-version... And I think that there's not a *huge* loss there. For me, as an observer and occiasional user/developer, I think the loss of not running on cygwin+winXX is larger.
After all, the data can still be dumped / reloaded. And what gives me the certainty that the two versions of PostgreSQL, the cygwin and the native version, are not already compiled in such way that they're not binary compatible? (remember, I'm an outsider on this, with no knowledge of the binary formats, and I'm trying to remain in that perspective for this discussion)
I don't know what the failure will be when you now try to move a data-directory from the cygwin version to the native version, when cygwin uses a .lnk hack and native uses a junction. Did anyone try? What do the results look like? Is there an acceptable way to stop ppl from trying / give sensible errors without introducing too much crap in the code and without harming ppls data?
From: pgsql-cygwin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-cygwin-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 1:02 AM
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: Reini Urban; PostgreSQL Developers; pgsql-cygwin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [CYGWIN] [HACKERS] open item: tablespace handing in pg_dump/pg_restore
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> OK, I have applied the following patch that uses Cygwin native symlink()
> instead of the Win32 junctions. The reason for this is that Cygwin
> symlinks work on Win95/98/ME where junction points do not and we have no
> way to know what system will be running the Cygwin binaries so the
> safest bet is to use the Cygwin versions. On Win32 native we only run
> on systems that support junctions.
I think this is probably a net loss, because what it will mean is that
you cannot take a data directory built under a Cygwin postmaster and use
it under a native postmaster, nor vice versa. Given the number of other
ways in which we do not support pre-NT4 Windows systems, what is the
benefit of allowing this one?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
pgsql-cygwin by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-10-13 09:51:36|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Static build of libpq fails|
|Previous:||From: Noreen Jaster||Date: 2004-10-12 23:50:59|
|Subject: Re: Static build of libpq fails|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dave Page||Date: 2004-10-13 07:45:33|
|Subject: Re: PL/PgSQL for counting all rows in all tables.|
|Previous:||From: Neil Conway||Date: 2004-10-13 04:05:53|
|Subject: Re: Question about Parser()|