Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> > Port lib. Regardless where it comes from, the porting code should be a
> > self contained library, not a list of objects. On Windows, a .DLL can
> > do some things easier than an application. Also, having a library
> > allows more flexibility as to how a port is designed.
> 
> That may be necessary on Windoze, but on any other platform breaking out
> an essential part of the backend as a library strikes me as a dead loss.
> You create extra risk of installation mistakes, can't-find-library
> startup failures, version mismatch problems, etc, etc --- for zero gain
> that I can see.

It does not need, and probably should not be by default, a shared library under
UNIX. A static library is fine. The issue is whether or not it makes sense to
try and design all porting layers the same, or allow the port engineer the
flexibility to create what they need the way they need to do it. 

A side note:
The "Windoze" comment says a lot Tom. Believe me, I am currently no fan of
Windows, but there is something to be said about doing a good job supporting
such a popular platform, regardless of our personal opinions. When I was
working at DMN, I had to make sure we could find country music and Brittany
Spears. Distasteful, but certainly something that needed to be done.

IMHO, I think a great PostgreSQL implementation for Win32 is a nail in the
coffin for Windows. If we give them a great database, which runs well under
Windows, for free, MSSQL will now have a serious competitor for the medium to
small marketplace.

Once MSSQL has viable cross-platform competition in this space, one less
requirement for Windows will exist. Right now, if you implement on Windows, you
are most likely going to use MSSQL and be stuck there. With a good Win32
PostgreSQL, an engineer can implement on PostgreSQL for Windows, and easily
move it to a "real" environment for stability. 

I see it as an important step.