- 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, February 02, 2003 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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
mysql
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 handling they
: Dann Corbit [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Christopher Browne [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Greg Copeland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Justin Clift [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jeff Davis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows
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.
No, it is
Curt Sampson wrote:
snip
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
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
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
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 the
Christopher Browne wrote:
snip
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
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 actually a
Christopher Browne wrote:
snip
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
- 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 there
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], 'Bruce Momjian' [EMAIL PROTECTED
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 actually a
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-3.23.55dir /s *.dll, *.exe
Volume in drive E has no label.
Volume Serial Number is 7496-C335
Directory of
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
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
-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] writes:
Like
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
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] writes
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/
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'm
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
-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 System
On Fri, 2003-01
-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 (and all associated data
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
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. PostgreSQL
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
-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 the person who's crap I've been
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 MySQL
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 will
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
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
Sounds like you're
-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
been on both sides know that the windows user
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
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 better than the
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
enough.
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 project,
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 start a
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
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 crash?
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
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 Windows 'cos
-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 pull-the-plug case you have to worry about
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 kill -9
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
future
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
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
-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
Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
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]
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 first
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 flame on tag? Flames are by long tradition personal. But I
understand that that wasn't the intent -- the flame on was more of a
emphasis tag.
Sure, we're
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: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
I've
-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:
Cool irony in the automated .sig
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:
...
hammering the betas is
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 issues.
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 'supported'
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 about
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 job
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 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't twist
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
Katie
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: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED
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
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 find
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 that
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 hope
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 will be more likely to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:37 AM
To: Curtis Faith
Cc: 'Al Sutton'; 'Bruce Momjian'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
Curtis Faith [EMAIL
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Katie Ward wrote:
flame on
In all honesty, I do not *want* Windows people to think that they're not
running on the poor stepchild platform.If we go down that path,
they'll start trying to run production databases on Windows, and then
we'll get blamed for the
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 29 January 2003 16:27
To: Katie Ward
Cc: Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
The only assumption I see being made here is this:
I believe
tom lane wrote:
flame on
In all honesty, I do not *want* Windows people to think that
they're not running on the poor stepchild platform.
We should distinguish between poor stepchild from a client support
perspective and a production environment perspective.
What is the downside to supporting
Curtis Faith wrote:
snip
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,
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:
flame on
In all honesty, I do not *want* Windows people to think that
they're not running on the poor
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) has been going on
Vince Vielhaber wrote:
snip
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
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 29 January 2003 16:27
To: Katie Ward
Cc: Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
The only assumption
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
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... Still,
industrial strength testing or not, it's
: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
My gripe had to do with questioning the reliability of the platform, not
of the
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 29 January 2003 16:45
To: Dave Page
Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
hammering
-Original Message-
From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 29 January 2003 16:57
To: Katie Ward
Cc: Dave Page; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
The code's been available for what a week or two? Do
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' the
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: 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
Dave Page [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'll admit
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
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
emulate Unix
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 tests
-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, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
I would
-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, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
The code's
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 catch 22 if testing won't
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: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
On Wed
, 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.
---(end of broadcast
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
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
James Hubbard wrote:
snip
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,
Theres a script at http://ptolemy.eecs.berkeley.edu/other/makevcgen which
may work, I've not tried it, but someone may want to give it a spin.
Combining it with the software at http://unxutils.sourceforge.net could give
us a MS build environment which only relies on installation support programs
99 matches
Mail list logo
