Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> > 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 t
- Original Message -
From: "Justin Clift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Curt Sampson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Curtis Faith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, Feb
From: "Bruce Momjian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I am using SRA's Win32 port here on XP, and it doesn't use readline.
>
> It does have arrow handling for psql, but does not do Control-A/E
> handling, nor keep the history between psql invocations. I assume this
> is what the limited command-line hand
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think I have sorted through the confusion.
>
> Looks like the only thing cygwin might be used for is a client. Here's what
> the manual that comes with the 4.0.9gamma source says:
>
> There are two versions of the MySQL command-line tool: Binary Description
> mysq
Curt Sampson wrote:
> What I'm hearing here is that all we really need to do to "compete" with
> MySQL on Windows is to make the UI a bit slicker. So what's the problem
> with someone building, for each release, a set of appropriate
binaries, and
> someone making a slick install program that will
On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Curtis Faith writes:
>
> >a) Running as a service is important as this the way NT/2000
> > administrators manage server tasks. The fact that PostgreSQL's Cygwin
> > emulation doesn't do this is very indicative of inferior Windows
> > support.
>
> N
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 00:46, Dann Corbit wrote:
> MySQL for Win32 has no connection whatsoever with anything from Cygwin
> or Mingw
Excellent. Thanks for humoring me. ;)
--
Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Copeland Computer Consulting
---(end of broadcast)-
;PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
> For MySQL:
> There is no Cygwin needed. Period.
>
> I did a build last night. Using nothing but Visual Studio with the
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:39 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Christopher Browne; Justin Clift; Jeff Davis; PostgresSQL
> Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:18 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Christopher Browne; Justin Clift; Jeff Davis; PostgresSQL
> Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 19:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
> For MySQL:
> There is no Cygwin needed. Period.
Sorry to followup again, but I did want to point out something. I'm
assuming you actually installed it. Please take note that the cygwin
dll is normally installed into one of the window's directori
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 16:07, Christopher Browne wrote:
> I'm making the generous assumption that since /they/ claim that there is
> some distinction, that there perhaps is one.
I've used the cygwin environment enough to know that there isn't any.
If it's linked against the cygwin dll, the applic
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 19:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
> For MySQL:
> There is no Cygwin needed. Period.
>
Any idea as to why we seem to be getting such a conflicting story here?
By several accounts, it does. Now, your saying it doesn't. What the
heck is going on here. Not that I'm doubting you. I
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, mlw wrote:
> Like it or not, if PG releases a very good Win32 port, ALL the unixoids
> combined will be out numbered by the windoze users.
Now that's certainly something to look forward to.
Vince.
--
Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/
Dann Corbit wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:24 PM
To: mlw
Cc: Lamar Owen; Dann Corbit; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tom Lane wrote:
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Like it or not, if PG releases a very good Win32 port, ALL the unixoids
combined will be out numbered by the windoze users.
A lot of us are *not* looking forward to that prospect.
regards, tom lane
No doubt to that, but, depending
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:24 PM
> To: mlw
> Cc: Lamar Owen; Dann Corbit; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> mlw <[EMAIL P
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Like it or not, if PG releases a very good Win32 port, ALL the unixoids
> combined will be out numbered by the windoze users.
A lot of us are *not* looking forward to that prospect.
regards, tom lane
---(end of br
Like it or not, if PG releases a very good Win32 port, ALL the unixoids
combined will be out numbered by the windoze users.
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 31 January 2003 20:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
Now, as far as the Win32 animosity goes, I think that is a natural thing
too. There is a culture c
On Friday 31 January 2003 20:22, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Now, as far as the Win32 animosity goes, I think that is a natural thing
> too. There is a culture clash between the Linux camps and the Win32
> camps. Typically, it's the highly intelligent kids recently out of
> college that are in love with
For MySQL:
There is no Cygwin needed. Period.
I did a build last night. Using nothing but Visual Studio with the
Intel C++ compiler for Win32.
Here is what got built:
E:\mysql-3.23.55>dir /s *.dll, *.exe
Volume in drive E has no label.
Volume Serial Number is 7496-C335
Directory of E:\mysql-
Curtis Faith writes:
>a) Running as a service is important as this the way NT/2000
> administrators manage server tasks. The fact that PostgreSQL's Cygwin
> emulation doesn't do this is very indicative of inferior Windows
> support.
No, it is indicative of the inability to read the documentat
> On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 07:22, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > But it's not /nearly/ that straightforward.
>> If you look at the downloads that MySQL AB provides, they point you
>> to a link that says "Windows binaries use the Cygwin library."
>> Which apparently means that this "feature" is not ac
Original Message
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:46:20 -0500
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Curtis Faith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 'Al Sutton'
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tom Lane wrote:
"Curtis Faith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If a developer can simply download the source, click on the Visual C++
project in the win32 directory and then build PostgreSQL, and they can
see that Windows is not the "poor stepchild" because the VC project is
well laid out, they
- Original Message -
From: "Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm confused as to whether you are being sarcastic or truly seem to
> think there is a distinction here. Simple question, does MySQL require
> the cygwin dll's (or statically linked to) to run?
>
> If the answer is yes, then
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> >> From the MySQL site's page about MySQL vs PostgreSQL:
> >>http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
> >>
> >>"MySQL Server works better on Windows than PostgreSQL does. MySQL
> >>Server runs as a native Windows application (a service on
> >>NT/2
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 07:22, Christopher Browne wrote:
> But it's not /nearly/ that straightforward.
>
> If you look at the downloads that MySQL AB provides, they point you to a link
> that says "Windows binaries use the Cygwin library."
>
> Which apparently means that this "feature" is not actu
On Friday 31 January 2003 05:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And what about MySQL?
>
> What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
> requires Cygwin. Is that true or not?
For reference, from the INSTALL-SOURCE file included in
the My
Christopher Browne wrote:
From the MySQL site's page about MySQL vs PostgreSQL:
http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/MySQL-PostgreSQL_features.html
"MySQL Server works better on Windows than PostgreSQL does. MySQL Server
runs as a native Windows application (a service on NT/2000/XP), while
PostgreSQL i
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 31 January 2003 06:27
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> > What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Window
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Page
> Sent: 30 January 2003 19:57
> To: Vince Vielhaber; Lamar Owen
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
> I ought to plonk you for a comment like that. Especially
> coming from
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> The reason the TIP is
> still there is that there are platforms on which that stuff doesn't work
> very nicely. It's better to let the postmaster exit cleanly so that
> that state gets cleaned up. I have no idea what the comparable issues
> are for a
Jan Wieck wrote:
> Looking at the arguments so far, nearly everyone who questions the Win32
> port must be vehemently against the Cygwin stuff anyway. So that camp
> should be happy to see it flushed down the toilet. And the pro-Win32
> people want the native version because they are unhappy with t
> Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Assuming all your assumptions are right, why the hell is Oracle's and MS
> > SQL-Server's reputation that bloody good?
>
> They have marketing departments.
... As well as sizable systems integration departments devoted to the
platforms in question. Po
Jeff Davis wrote:
> > What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
> > requires Cygwin. Is that true or not?
>
> It's been a while, but I know I've installed MySQL on windows without any
> separate step of installing Cygwin (I can't say 100% for sure that it didn't
>
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> >>What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
> >>requires Cygwin. Is that true or not?
> >
> > It's been a while, but I know I've installed MySQL on windows without any
> > separate step of installing Cygwin (I can't say 100% for sure that it d
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 22:47
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
> I have lost entire directory trees
Jeff Davis wrote:
What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
requires Cygwin. Is that true or not?
It's been a while, but I know I've installed MySQL on windows without any
separate step of installing Cygwin (I can't say 100% for sure that it didn't
install some
> What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
> requires Cygwin. Is that true or not?
It's been a while, but I know I've installed MySQL on windows without any
separate step of installing Cygwin (I can't say 100% for sure that it didn't
install some part of Cygwin t
Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> Greg Copeland wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> > > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> > > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> > > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding W
Jan Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Assuming all your assumptions are right, why the hell is Oracle's and MS
> SQL-Server's reputation that bloody good?
They have marketing departments.
> And what about MySQL?
What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port
requires
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > I agree with Tom on yanking the plug while it's operating. Do you
> > know the difference between kill -9 and yanking the plug?
>
> Kill -9 seems to me _less_ severe than yanking the plug but much easier
> to automate, so that could be the first thing to test. You have no
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.
... has UPS, ECC Ram on quality boards and storage subsystems
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
> > >
> > > Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
> > > [...]
> > > Sounds like you're basically saying is
> > >_do_ 'kill -9' the postmaster...
> > > and make sure it recovers gracefully.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to fi
Katie Ward wrote:
>
> The latest build is still: ftp://209.61.187.152/postgres/postgres_beta4.zip
>
> This is not exactly what Jan submitted, and the catalog number is slightly
> different, but it should do for testing.
That binary at least demonstrates, what could be built based on the code
sub
Dave Page wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 29 January 2003 16:57
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Katie Ward; Curtis Faith;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HA
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> > > solution".
> >
> > Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
> > prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... St
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 30 January 2003 19:20
> > To: Lamar Owen
> > Cc: Tom Lane; Dave Page; Ron Mayer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re:
On Thursday 30 January 2003 18:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, great; you're probably proof against misfeasance of your local
> power company. But how about someone tripping over the power cord?
Twistlok.
> Or a blowout in the server's internal power supply?
Redundant supplies.
> Or a kernel cras
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 powe
On Thursday 30 January 2003 13:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> anyone took anything I said as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that
> way.
With a tag? Flames are by long tradition personal. But I
understand that that wasn't the intent -- the was more of a
tag.
> Sure, we're on record as not likin
On Thursday 30 January 2003 15:29, 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
> Windows shares none of that heritage. It is the fi
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:39:59PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
> >
> > With this I agree, but before you start thinking that Windows is the
> > only OS that qualifies, consider this: I've run the "pull the plug"
> > test under early Linux 2.4 kernels running with ReiserFS. I'd
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 02:39:59PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> With this I agree, but before you start thinking that Windows is the
> only OS that qualifies, consider this: I've run the "pull the plug"
> test under early Linux 2.4 kernels running with ReiserFS. I'd start a
> make of a large pro
Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> > When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> > Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> > well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable
> >
From: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
> Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
> fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
> is a suitable platform for PG, and in wa
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 14:27, Dave Page wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 30 January 2003 15:56
> > To: Hannu Krosing
> > Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Dave Page; Ron Mayer;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:30 PM
> To: Lamar Owen
> Cc: Dave Page; Vince Vielhaber; Ron Mayer;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 bette
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:56, Dave Page wrote:
> When properly configured, Windows can be reliable, maybe not as much as
> Solaris or HPUX but certainly some releases of Linux (which I use as
> well). You don't see Oracle or IBM avoiding Windows 'cos it isn't stable
> enough.
I'm not jumping on one
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 her
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've never (to my knowledge) lost any data following a powerfail or
> system crash on a system using NTFS ...
> Obviously this goes out of the window is the user chooses to run on
> FAT/FAT32 partitions. I think that it should be made *very* clear in any
>
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.
> To go to that extreme for Win32 when we caution
> against something as mundane as a ki
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
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 15:56
> To: Hannu Krosing
> Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Dave Page; Ron Mayer;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> In the
> -Original Message-
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 19:20
> To: Lamar Owen
> Cc: Tom Lane; Dave Page; Ron Mayer; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> I've
&g
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday 30 January 2003 13:17, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > Vince, I would say that we, the developers of PostgreSQL, are then not
> > > qualified to test our own releases for the reasons you mentioned that
> >
On Thursday 30 January 2003 13:17, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > Vince, I would say that we, the developers of PostgreSQL, are then not
> > qualified to test our own releases for the reasons you mentioned that
> > Katie should not test her own releases.
> Don'
Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And poor Katie just got _slammed_ -- and she's the lead developer.
We could definitely do without the vitriol. I'd like to apologize if
anyone took anything I said as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that
way.
> The developers don't like Win32. That's
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Vince, I would say that we, the developers of PostgreSQL, are then not
> qualified to test our own releases for the reasons you mentioned that Katie
> should not test her own releases. Of course that's ridiculous -- often the
> developers can do a better
Hi,
On Thursday 30 January 2003 17:12, you wrote:
> "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 t
On Thursday 30 January 2003 11:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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 abou
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 'suppo
Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kill -9 seems to me _less_ severe than yanking the plug but much easier
> to automate, so that could be the first thing to test. You have no hope
> of passing the pull-the-plug test if you can't survive even kill -9.
Actually, they're two orthogonal issu
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:24, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > > > ...
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
> > >
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> -Original Message-
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 30 January 2003 09:17
> To: Ron Mayer
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
>
>
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote:
>
> Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > ...
> > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength solution".
> > ...
> > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> Sound
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Curtis Faith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If a developer can simply download the source, click on the Visual C++
> > project in the win32 directory and then build PostgreSQL, and they can
> > see that Windows is not the "poor stepchild" because the VC project is
> > well laid
Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software...
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> ...
> hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength solution".
> ...
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Sounds like you're basically saying is
_do_ 'kill -9' t
Justin Clift wrote:
> For another perspective, we've been getting a few requests per day
> through the PostgreSQL Advocacy and Marketing site's request form along
> the lines of:
>
> "Is there a license fee for using PostgreSQL? We'd like to distribute
> it with our XYZ product that needs a da
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
So you've been running these unscientific tests you're telling us
about being so successful for "some months"?
Vince.
I open my mouth and insert foot: Where do I get any of these scientific
tests to determine if the latest and greatest 7.3.x will not fall down on my
fa
James Hubbard wrote:
I open my mouth and insert foot: Where do I get any of these scientific
tests to determine if the latest and greatest 7.3.x will not fall down
on my favorite Unix?
For Open Source benchmarks, there is:
Open Source Database Benchmark:
http://osdb.sf.net
With this, you *w
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, James Hubbard wrote:
> Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>The code's been available for what a week or two? Do you
> >>>actually think that can be considered conclusive by any standard?
> >>
> >>Public beta testing (but closed source
aethema.
cheers
andrew
- Original Message -
From: "Curtis Faith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
> tom lane wrote:
> >
> > In all honesty
Katie Ward wrote:
The latest build is still: ftp://209.61.187.152/postgres/postgres_beta4.zip
This is not exactly what Jan submitted, and the catalog number is slightly
different, but it should do for testing.
In case anyone's interested, there are step by step installation
instructions for it
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
The code's been available for what a week or two? Do you
actually think that can be considered conclusive by any standard?
Public beta testing (but closed source) has been going on for some
months.
So you've been running these u
Curtis Faith wrote:
> If people are deciding what open-source database server they want to
use, Linux or FreeBSD is the obvious choice for the server OS. The kind
of people who are inclined to use PostgreSQL or MySQL will mostly NOT be
considering Windows servers.
For another perspective, we've
Wednesday, January 29, 2003 12:02 PM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Katie Ward; Curtis Faith;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
> Katie, can I get the latest build from anywhere?
>
> Regards, Dave.
---
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: 29 January 2003 17:10
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Katie Ward wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Katie Ward wrote:
> >
> > > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> > > > > > solution".
> > > > >
> > > > > Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit
> -Original Message-
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29 January 2003 17:13
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> On Wed, 2
> -Original Message-
> From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29 January 2003 17:10
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> On Wed, 2
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > The code's been available for what a week or two? Do you
> > actually think that can be considered conclusive by any standard?
>
> Public beta testing (but closed source) has been going on for some
> months.
So you've been running these unscientific test
"Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Aside from load testing as suggested by Vince, I'd be
>> interested to hear what happens when you pull the power cord
>> under load (repeatedly). This would give some evidence about
>> the robustness of the Windows filesystem and its ability to
>> emu
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> I would be interested to know how many windows servers those that are
> against a windows port of PostgreSQL have or do manage, and how
> experienced they are with that platform...
At this point I'm not for or against. But you're going to have to do
more t
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 29 January 2003 16:57
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Vince Vielhaber; Katie Ward; Curtis Faith;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
>
>
> "Da
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
