Thomas Swan wrote: > >The fact of the matter is that PostgreSQL runs better on some > >platforms than others, and it probably always will. Heck, as of > >today, PostgreSQL is officially supported on the Gamecube. Does that > >mean that the PostgreSQL developers should limit themselves to the > >features offered by the Gamecube? What, precisely, is the point of > >developing for the lowest common denominator? > > > > > > The other option proposed was to give win32 a subset of features that > would be available to other platforms. In this case, that would be that > the win32 port could support tablespaces. This is strikingly different > than a performance issue. It would be one thing for tablespaces to > perform poorly, it's another for them to fail or not exist altogether. > > >Perhaps if you could give us an example of an actual case where some > >actual PostgreSQL users (or potential users) might be affected? > > > > > > See the comment from Tom Lane on limiting features. Look at the > potential Win32 market which outnumbers the unix market in number of > computers and developers by a large margin.
Let me put it this way. Unix tools like tar can already use symlinks, as can administrators from the command line, so symlinks are best on that platform, period. If we have a platform that doesn't have symlinks (and I think Win32 might), we will have to implement a different way to do tablespace lookups _only_ for those platforms. The use of symlinks on Unix has just too many advantages to use a another sub-optimal solution on that platform. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
