Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev(at)michvhf(dot)com]
> Sent: 29 January 2003 16:36
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:vev(at)michvhf(dot)com]
> > > Sent: 29 January 2003 16:27
> > > To: Katie Ward
> > > Cc: Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
> > >
> > >
> > > The only assumption I see being made here is this:
> > >
> > > "I believe that the port, as submitted, can be used as an
> > > industrial-strength solution."
> > >
> > > I see no evidence to support this claim. If you have
> this evidence,
> > > feel free to share it with the rest of us.
> >
> > I hammered the betas on a couple of test boxes running
> Windows XP and
> > .NET Server of various (pre)releases and found it to be rock solid,
> > performing comparably to my Linux based systems. The Cygwin version
> > fell over quite quickly under the same tests.
> >
> > I'll admit my methods were not particularly scientific, but
> over the
> > last few weeks I've had far more grief from DB2 and SQL
> Server than I
> > did from the PostgreSQL native betas.
>
> hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> solution".

Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still,
industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000
and DB2 installations I have here.

Regards, Dave.