What a bizarre claim. It's irrelevant if you don't need Postgres, a minor inconvenience if you can easily adopt a workaround, and a show stopper if you were relying on accessing a local Postgres instance.
Have you developed in this environment? I have developed more than 20 sites in WSL1, all with PG as the DB. I have it running in the same machine in windows for developemnt(which you are running otherwise you wouldnt be in WSL).Instead of using "localhost" you use "127.0.0.1" in your configuration, that's it.
I have scripts that rely on connecting to PostgreSQL via a UNIX socket, I couldn't use these scripts on WSL. A workaround wouldn't be too hard, but ideally WSL should be 100% Linux-compatible in my opinion.
No, I haven't. Thanks for clarifying, that does make it sound like much less of a problem. Though it might still catch out some people, e.g. on a corporate machine where you're permitted to run WSL but not Postgres.
Yes, that's what I do, and it is completely transparent. I dont know why people are so dumbfounded because I wrote it was a minor inconvenience at worst.
What a bizarre claim. It's irrelevant if you don't need Postgres, a minor inconvenience if you can easily adopt a workaround, and a show stopper if you were relying on accessing a local Postgres instance.