Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
От | ow |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20031118163929.70058.qmail@web21403.mail.yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? ("Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ?
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Not 7.5, but 8.0 ? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
--- Dann Corbit <DCorbit@connx.com> wrote: > Which feature is requested more than that? Not sure how often features are requested and by whom. However, if you take a look at the TODO list, you'll find plenty of stuff more important than win32 port. > Of the following (which includes every significant DBMS in terms of > market share), which did not consider a native Windows port to be > important: > SQL*Sever (all right, we can discount this one...) > DB/2 > Oracle > MySQL > Sybase > Informix Have *never* seen ppl running Oracle or Sybase on Windows. Not sure about DB/2 or Informix, never worked with them, but I'd suspect the picture is the same. They may claim that they have win port but it's more of a marketing gimmick than a useful feature that affects real, not hypothetical, users. IMHO, core postgreSql development should not be sacrificed for the sake of win32 port. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: