Re: Win32 defines

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2003 at 12:38:51PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Neil Conway wrote:
> >
> > > If we finish the native Win32 port, is there any need to keep the cygwin
> > > stuff around?
> >
> > They do ship PostgreSQL with cygwin, so we may need to keep it around,
> > at least for a few releases, and it isn't that big a port.
>
> Surely there's no need for a less performant, less reliable Cygwin port
> when a native Win32 one is available?  If they ship it now, they
> probably won't need to later when the Win32 port is finished.  Cygwin is
> already said to be "experimental" or non-commercial quality, AFAIR.
>
> Not that I care though...

I can remove it anytime people want it removed --- maybe once we have
Win32 stabalized and working 100%, we can remove it.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073