Marc G. Fournier wrote:
Not bad. I think I'd say " ... does not have the benefit of years of use in production environments that PostgreSQL has on Unix platforms ..." - I agree with Merlin that we shouldn't imply it hasn't been extensively tested.On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
Rob Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go through all the tests or something.
How about "it does not have the extensive testing history that other supported platforms in this release have."
Not bad, but it doesn't make the point that there's a lot of new platform-specific code for Windows in there. You want to point out not only that there's no history, but that there's new code to be suspicious of.
"Altho tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not have the benefit of the years of testing that has gone into the Unix platforms, and, as such, should be treated with the same level of caution as you would a new product"
cheers
andrew
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
