Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[Ernesto Gutierrez]

Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have used the cygwin version too. It is a waste of time. No Windows
user will
> > ever accept it. No windows-only user is going to use the cygwin tools.
>
> With decent packaging, no windows-only user would even know we have
> cygwin in there.  The above argument is just plain irrelevant.  The real
> point is that we need a nice clean friendly GUI for both installation
> and administration --- and AFAICS that will take about the same amount of
> work to write whether the server requires cygwin internally or not.

I'm afraid I agree with mlw, Tom. I don't think the problem ends at the GUI,
although for many people it would.  The issue extends at least also to
support and troubleshooting.  In a production environment, I have a better
chance of figuring out what's going wrong with an application written
natively for an operating system dealing directly with that operating
system. I would take a dim view of using PostgreSQL running on cygwin unless
I had extensive experience doing it, or if there were no other alternative.

> > From a production stand point, would anyone reading this trust their
> > data to PostgreSQL running on cygwin?
>
> I wouldn't trust my data to *any* database running on a Microsoft OS.
> Period.  The above argument thus doesn't impress me at all, especially
> when it's being made without offering a shred of evidence that cygwin
> contributes any major degree of instability.

If you could prove to me that cygwin doesn't contribute *any* instability,
I'd still be pretty worried, probably for the same reasons that you don't
trust any Microsoft OS. There are increased chances that something could go
critically wrong, particularly in an environment fundamentally different. I
think mlw's basic point is quite valid, that PG+cygwin will not ever find
favor with decision-makers who are used to Windows systems.  Suspicion of
the other environment's foibles is common, and goes both ways.

> I am especially unhappy about the prospect of major code revisions
> and development time spent on chasing this rather than improving our
> performance and stability on Unix-type OSes.  I agree with the comment
> someone else made: that's just playing Microsoft's game.

There I don't deny you may be right.

Ernie Gutierrez
Walnut Creek, CA


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[Hannu Krosing]

On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I have used the cygwin version too. It is a waste of time. No Windows user will
> > ever accept it. No windows-only user is going to use the cygwin tools.
> 
> With decent packaging, no windows-only user would even know we have
> cygwin in there.  The above argument is just plain irrelevant.  The real
> point is that we need a nice clean friendly GUI for both installation
> and administration --- and AFAICS that will take about the same amount of
> work to write whether the server requires cygwin internally or not.


We can go the Oracle way and write a 200MB cross-platform java installer
requiring and exact version of java runtime 


> Rather than expending largely-pointless work on internal rewrites of
> the server, people who care about this issue ought to be thinking about
> the GUI problems.

pgAccess is quite nice (Disclaimer: I'm not a windows weenie, I run it
inside vmware/win98 IE browser test environment on my Linux workstation
;). 

Why not just bundle what we've got ?

> > From a production stand point, would anyone reading this trust their
> > data to PostgreSQL running on cygwin?
> 
> I wouldn't trust my data to *any* database running on a Microsoft OS.
> Period. 

Do we support Xenix and SCO ?

> The above argument thus doesn't impress me at all, especially
> when it's being made without offering a shred of evidence that cygwin
> contributes any major degree of instability.

>From the comments here it seems to be either cygwin or more likely
cygipc

> I am especially unhappy about the prospect of major code revisions
> and development time spent on chasing this rather than improving our
> performance and stability on Unix-type OSes.  I agree with the comment
> someone else made: that's just playing Microsoft's game.

Not!

I think that this thread is mostly about coordinating code and interface
cleanups that are likely beneficial for both *NIX and non-*NIX platforms
mainly
 * cleaner support for semaphores
 * separating shared and per-process data
 * process creation
 * (file operations)
 * (init and service scripts)
if done properly none of these will degrade code quality nor
performance.

Also, having a clean interface for those will not only enable any
interested party to make windows/BeOS/OSX/QNX binaries with less effort,
it will most likely make it easier make use of advances in *NIX world
like AIO, multiprocessor systems, NUMA and distributed systems, and just
make things more robust and reliable by making code inspection easier.

---
Hannu



---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[Hannu Krosing]

On Thu, 2002-05-09 at 19:23, mlw wrote:
> Lee Kindness wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Sure It'd be nice to have a native PostgreSQL on XP Server (I don't
> > see the point in consumer level Microsoft OSs) but how high is the
> > demand? What's the prize? What are the current limitations - fork,
> > semaphores, ugly interface...?
> 
> The demand for PostgreSQL on Windows is currently as near to zero as you can
> imagine. This is probably because there is no viable PostgreSQL on Windows.
> 
> If written correctly, a Win32 version of PostgreSQL would rock the Windows
> world. I see no reason why it would be limted to the "professional" version.
> Hell, it could even run on Windows 98.

Perhaps we could simpultaneously solve another problem - creating a
singlethreaded embeddable version of postgresql "engine"

-
Hannu



---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[Jan Wieck]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
> >>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
> >>> we should write a real Win32 version.
> >>
> >> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
>
> >> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real
> >> Win32 version.  That clearly attaches responsibility to someone who
> >> is interested.
>
> > I have already said that I am willing to write the pieces for a
> > Windows port.  The issue is changes in PostgreSQL required to do it.
>
> No, I don't think you understand.
>
> If you're planning to do a port, then _all_ changes are your
> responsibility.  Nobody ought to need to change PostgreSQL in order for
> you to write a Windows port; that, in fact, would be a waste of time,
> having several people working on something that should probably be done
> by one person.

Who  said PostgreSQL shall not support any other OS than *NIX
or things that look alike?

When I first used Postgres, it still had a VMS  port.   Well,
we  dropped  the VMS port at some point, when we where pretty
sure it was broken and nobody complained.

Now we  face  the  fact  that  Microsoft  managed  to  create
something  useful  (other than a joystick or optical mouse, I
mean Win2K).  And as a  logical  consequence  more  and  more
people ask for support of their OS.

A  good  deal  of  effort  in the original Postgres was about
portability.  I hope we've not become a UNIX-only show.


Jan

--

#==#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.  #
#== [EMAIL PROTECTED] #



---(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

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[mlw]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
> >>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
> >>> we should write a real Win32 version.
> >>
> >> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
> 
> >> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real
> >> Win32 version.  That clearly attaches responsibility to someone who
> >> is interested.
> 
> > I have already said that I am willing to write the pieces for a
> > Windows port.  The issue is changes in PostgreSQL required to do it.
> 
> No, I don't think you understand.
> 
> If you're planning to do a port, then _all_ changes are your
> responsibility.  Nobody ought to need to change PostgreSQL in order for
> you to write a Windows port; that, in fact, would be a waste of time,
> having several people working on something that should probably be done
> by one person.

Without buy-in from the group, there is no point in me wasting my time doing
all the work necessary. I'm not interested in making Mark's special version of
PostgreSQL.

If we can agree on a strategy and a course, then it is worth doing. If all the
changes made fall on the floor because the group does not like them, then I
wasted my time. Got it?

Also, doing the Windows portions of the code will represent a significant
investment of my time. I'm not interested in doing a lot of work on a shoddy
project. If you ask the core group to put out a crappy version of PostgreSQL
for a UNIX, they would fight long and hard against it. Why should we be willing
to produce a crappy version for Windows, just because the people here don't
like Windows.

I don't care about Solaris, but I understand WHY it is important to make
PostgreSQL work well on it. I don't understand why the people in this group
don't see the same purpose for a Windows port. To be honest, I think a good
Windows port will do wonders for PostgreSQL's acceptance.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[cbbrowne]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting
>>> opinions, that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then
>>> we should write a real Win32 version.
>>
>> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."

>> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real
>> Win32 version.  That clearly attaches responsibility to someone who
>> is interested.

> I have already said that I am willing to write the pieces for a
> Windows port.  The issue is changes in PostgreSQL required to do it.

No, I don't think you understand.

If you're planning to do a port, then _all_ changes are your
responsibility.  Nobody ought to need to change PostgreSQL in order for
you to write a Windows port; that, in fact, would be a waste of time,
having several people working on something that should probably be done
by one person.
--
(concatenate 'string "aa454" "@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/x.html
Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? 

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[Jean-Michel POURE]

Le Jeudi 9 Mai 2002 16:55, mlw a écrit :
> Can a cygwin version of PostgreSQL see the native file system, like: C:\My
> Database, D:\postgres?

You have the choice to keep Windows or Unix paths. Both are supported.
/Jean-Michel POURE

---(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

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[Steve Wampler]

Christopher Browne wrote:
> 
> If "fixing" PostgreSQL to "work" on Win32 caused a whole lot of
> breakage on the Unix side, that would _not_ be a "win."  It might
> do well on Win32, but breakage could lead to a LOSS of interest
> on Unix, as people decided to take the point of view that the
> developers considered it more important to toady to Win-Needs
> than to improve how it works on Unix.
 
As a PostgreSQL user, I *wholeheartedly* agree.  I have no need nor
interest in a Win32 solution.  Period.  If I perceive that an effort
to add a Win32 postgresql is adversely impacting the ongoing
development of Unix-based PostgreSQL then I will start looking at
other solutions.

In fact, if you folks could find additional resources that would
support Win32 development, it still seems to me that perhaps those
resources could be better spent improving the Unix version.

-- 
Steve Wampler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
O sibile, si ergo.  Fortibus es enaro.
Nobile, demis trux.  Demis phulla causan dux.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[mlw]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting opinions,
> > that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then we should
> > write a real Win32 version.
> 
> The crucial wrong word is the word "we."
> 
> If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real Win32
> version.  That clearly attaches responsibility to someone who is interested.

I have already said that I am willing to write the pieces for a Windows port.
The issue is changes in PostgreSQL required to do it.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [HACKERS] How much work is a native Windows application?

[cbbrowne]

> I think, and I know people are probably sick of me spouting opinions,
> that if you want a Windows presence for PostgreSQL, then we should
> write a real Win32 version.

The crucial wrong word is the word "we."

If _you_ want a Windows presence, then _you_ should write a real Win32 
version.  That clearly attaches responsibility to someone who is interested.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/unix.html
"I'm not switching from slrn.   I'm quite confident that anything that
*needs* to be posted in HTML is fatuous garbage not worth my time."
-- David M. Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #166.  "If the rebels manage to trick me, I
will make a  note of what they did  so that I do not  keep falling for
the same trick over and over again." 





msg16822/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature