> A binary version of PostgreSQL for Windows should not use the cygwin
> dll. I know and understand there is some disagreement with this
> position, but in this I'm sure about this.
That may ultimately be desirable.
In the short term, it is likely preferable to use cygwin.
It is only necessary to point at MySQL for an example. Cygwin is used there.
<http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-3.23.html> It is being used widely,
"crap" or not.
Cygwin may not ultimately be the ideal thing to use; we don't yet live in
Pangloss' "Best of All Possible Worlds," and thus have to live with some
things not being ideal.
If having the installer install Cygwin as well as the DBMS makes it easy to
have something usable soon, and this allows 100,000 WinFolk to try out
PostgreSQL, then that's a Big Win. Out of 100K users, surely two or three may
be attracted into working on a more Panglossian solution.
It may be fair to say that none of those 100K folk would be using PostgreSQL
to support HA applications involving hundreds of GB of data. That's _fine_.
If there are new 100K folk using PostgreSQL/cygwin, _some_ of them will
outgrow its capabilities, and come looking for improvements.
And as they're Windows users, accustomed to having to pay hefty amounts to
Microsoft to get support no better than that provided by the Psychic Friends
Network (see <http://www.bmug.org/news/articles/MSvsPF.html>), they'll
doubtless be prepared to have to pay _something_ in order for
"PostgreSQL/Win3K-Enterprise Edition" to become available.
That seems a not too unreasonable path towards the "Best of All Possible
Worlds." There may be a bit of hyperbole in the above, but any time Voltaire
gets quoted, that's likely to happen :-).
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/multiplexor.html
It's a little known fact that the Dark Ages were caused by the Y1K
problem.