Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 16:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> And, by the way, who in their right mind tests a database server by
>>> repeated yanking of the AC power?

>> Anybody who would like their data to survive a power outage.

> I don't buy that.  That's why I have $36,000 worth of lead acid in the room 
> next door, with $5,000 of inverters and chargers in the server room.

Well, great; you're probably proof against misfeasance of your local
power company.  But how about someone tripping over the power cord?
Or a blowout in the server's internal power supply?  Or a kernel crash?
Pulling the power plug is just a convenient way of (approximately)
modeling a whole class of unpleasant events.  I don't think the fact
that you can afford to spend that much on batteries makes it
uninteresting to test such scenarios.

But we're pretty much talking at cross-purposes here.  The real issue
IMHO is that the Windows port needs a lot of testing because it is a
new platform (for us), and one not like the platforms we've used before.
It is faulty to equate the amount of testing required to gain confidence
in that port with the amount of testing required to gain confidence that
PG 7.4 will run reliably on, say, HPUX 10.20, when we already know that
every PG back to 6.4 has run reliably on HPUX 10.20.  You're attacking a
straw man you have set up, namely the idea that only specific testing
produces confidence in a port.  In my mind past track record has a lot
more to do with confidence than whatever testing we do for an individual

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to