Anony Mous <A.Mous@shaw.ca> writes:
> The reality of my situation is that the MS SQL Server may only reside on the
> same machine (Win2K server) until all data has been transferred from it to
> postgres, and then for maybe a month after that. Beyond that, postgres will
> be the only RDBMS on the box. It is for the transitional time where the
> concerns were raised. I am stuck, however, to running on top of a Win OS at
> the moment.
Hmm... I had taken your initial post to mean that you intended to run an
experimental Postgres server on the same box as your production server.
If you mean you intend to transition to using PG-on-Cygwin-on-Windows
as a production server, well, I don't think anyone around here will
recommend that as a good idea. That assemblage is not stable enough to
qualify as a production-grade database (bearing in mind that database
geeks have very high standards for "production grade" reliability).
You really ought to reconsider this.
In a year or three we may think that the currently-in-progress native
Windows port is stable enough to be used for production. But the
Cygwin port has never been intended as anything except a playpen for
application authors who wanted to write and test SQL code on their
Windows laptops.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
