On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote: > Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > While I understand (and agree with) your (and Vince's) reasoning on why > > Windows should be considered less reliable, neither of you have provided a > > sound technical basis for why we should not hold the other ports to the same > > standards. > > The point here is that Windows is virgin territory for us. We know > about Unix. When we port to a new Unix variant, we are dealing with the > same system APIs, and in many cases large chunks of the same system > code, that we've dealt with before. It's reasonable for us to have > confidence that Postgres will work the same on such a platform as it > does on other Unix variants. And the track record of reliability that > we have built up across a bunch of Unix variants gives us > cross-pollinating confidence in all of them. > > Windows shares none of that heritage. It is the first truly new port, > onto a system without any Unix background, that we have ever done AFAIK.
I don't know how much Unix backgroun BeOS has. It does have a better POSIX support than Win32, but I don't know how much of it is really from Unix. > Claiming that it doesn't require an increased level of testing is > somewhere between ridiculous and irresponsible. We should have at least _some_ platforms (besides Win32) that we could clain to have run thorough test on. I suspect that RedHat does some (perhaps even severe) testing for RHAS/RHDB, but I don't know of any other thorough testing. Or should reliability testing actually be something left for commercial entities ? > > I believe we should test every release as pathologically as Vince > > has stated for Win32. > > Great, go to it. That does not alter the fact that today, with our > existing port history, Windows has to be treated with extra suspicion. I don't think that the pull-the-plug scenario happens enough in the wild that even our seven-year track record can prove anything conlusive about the reliability. I have not found instructions about providing that kind of reliability in the docs either - things like what filesystems to use on what OSes and with which mount options. We just mention -f as a way to get non-reliable system ;) > I do not buy the argument you are making that we should treat all > platforms alike. If we had a ten-year-old Windows port, we could > consider it as stable as all our other ten-year-old Unix ports. > We don't. Given that we don't have infinite resources for testing, > it's simple rationality to put more testing emphasis on the places > that we suspect there will be problems. And if you don't suspect > there will be problems on Windows, you are being way too naive :-( "We" don't have that old windows port, but I guess that there are native windows ports at least a few years old. > > Do we want to encourage Win32? (some obviously do, but I don't) Well, telling > > people that we have tested PostgreSQL on Win32 much more thoroughly than on > > Unix is in a way telling them that we think it is _better_ than the > > time-tested Unix ports ('It passed a harder test on Win32. Are we afraid the > > Unix ports won't pass those same tests?'). > > If it passes the tests, good for it. I honestly do not expect that it > will. My take on this is that we want to be able to document the > problems in advance, rather than be blindsided. Where can I read such documentations for *nix ports ? What I have read in this list is that losing different voltages in wrong order can just write over any sectors on a disk, and that power-cycling can blow up computers. I don't expect even Unix to survive that! -- Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster