Tom Lane wrote: > 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. Though that is Tom's opinion, I think the community opinion is that users should determine for themselves whether Cygwin or the upcoming native Win32 port are ready for production use. -- 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
