From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | "Vince Vielhaber" <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, "Ron Mayer" <ron(at)intervideo(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |
Date: | 2003-01-30 16:12:10 |
Message-ID: | 19832.1043943130@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> I would also point out that we already list the Cygwin port of
> PostgreSQL as supported. Who ever gave that the kind of testing people
> are demanding now? I think the worst case scenario will be that our
> Win32 port is far better than the existing 'supported' solution.
A good point --- but what this is really about is expectations. If we
support a native Windows port then people will probably think that it's
okay to run production databases on that setup; whereas I doubt many
people would think that about the Cygwin-based port. So what we need to
know is whether the platform is actually stable enough that that's a
reasonable thing to do; so that we can plaster the docs with appropriate
disclaimers if necessary. Windows, unlike the other OSes mentioned in
this thread, has a long enough and sorry enough track record that it
seems appropriate to run such tests ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Crawford | 2003-01-30 16:22:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-01-30 15:56:24 | Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System |