Re: [mail] Re: 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".

Vince.
--
Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/
http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com
Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.