Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
- 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 + It would be greatly helpful to have some way for the install program to automatically add the Log in as a service Win32 priviledge to the postgres user without having to instruct the user to do so. We can create the user automatically through a shell command, but no idea how to add that permission. If someone could do some Win32 API stuff to do it behind the scenes without a shell command even, that would be great. + The WinMaster project is a first go at creating a Win32 GUI command console for controlling the PostgreSQL service. It's still a bit too basic for real use though: http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/winmaster/projdisplay.php Further suggestions, volunteers, etc are totally welcome. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift It's still a bit too basic for real use though: Yeah i know. I write this for my internal use. Initial purpose of this stuff is only to avoid teaching of an old lady with minimum computer skills to use bash and hide this ugly dos box :) Mark L. Woodward (mlw) anounce few monts ago a self installing PostgreSQL for Windows so i write him about this console. He do a lof job to. Special thanks Mark. OK, now how to make WinMaster more usefull ? It's open source so if any1 want use it he/she may help to develop it. I. Install as a service feature for winmaster are included in my plans for future. II.I'm thinking about direct link to PostgreSQL server instead usung CreateProcess, but this is unclear idea at present time. Any suggestions will be welcome. IIIPlease add any feature rquests to http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/winmaster/bugs/buglist.php?fr=yes and ideas to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Justin you are right !!! Further suggestions, volunteers, etc are totally welcome!!! Further suggestions, volunteers, etc are totally welcome!!! Further suggestions, volunteers, etc are totally welcome!!! --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/2003 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
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 Compiled on native Windows, which offers very limited text editing capabilities. mysqlc Compiled with the Cygnus GNU compiler and libraries, which offers readline editing. If you want to use mysqlc.exe, you must copy `C:\mysql\lib\cygwinb19.dll' to your Windows system directory (`\windows\system' or similar place). 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 are talking about. -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 are talking about. Probably. But readline is GPL'd (not LGPL'd), so my company can't bundle it or anything that uses it with any non-GPL software we distribute. Similar arguments probably apply to a cygwin based port (not one built using cygwin, but requiring it to run) - IANAL but the company has to err on the side of caution here. andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 Compiled on native Windows, which offers very limited text editing capabilities. mysqlc Compiled with the Cygnus GNU compiler and libraries, which offers readline editing. If you want to use mysqlc.exe, you must copy `C:\mysql\lib\cygwinb19.dll' to your Windows system directory (`\windows\system' or similar place). I don't see a msqlc.exe below, but it is in the released binary distribution, along with the cygwinb19.dll. (kinda strange having a mismatch between source and binary distributions). The server appears to be entirely native. andrew - Original Message - From: 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 Build System 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 E:\mysql-3.23.55\client_debug 31/01/03 11:36a 557,115 isamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 733,247 myisamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 602,175 myisamlog.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 487,480 mysql.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 458,813 mysqladmin.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 479,299 mysqlbinlog.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 4,296,758 mysqld.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 598,076 mysqldump.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 446,526 mysqlimport.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 573,500 mysqlshow.exe 31/01/03 12:48a45,056 mysqlshutdown.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 618,559 pack_isam.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 307,200 replace.exe 13 File(s) 10,203,804 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\client_release 31/01/03 11:36a 327,680 isamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 458,752 myisamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 372,736 myisamlog.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 323,642 mysql.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 274,432 mysqladmin.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 278,528 mysqlbinlog.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 270,336 mysqlcheck.exe 31/01/03 12:35a 3,002,368 mysqld-max-nt.exe 31/01/03 12:48a 2,994,176 mysqld-max.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 2,564,096 mysqld-nt.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 2,560,000 mysqld-opt.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 286,720 mysqldump.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 266,240 mysqlimport.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 270,336 mysqlshow.exe 31/01/03 12:48a45,056 mysqlshutdown.exe 31/01/03 12:48a49,152 mysqlwatch.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 274,432 pack_isam.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 167,936 perror.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 188,416 replace.exe 19 File(s) 14,975,034 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\COMP_ERR\Release 31/01/03 11:36a 167,936 comp-err.exe 1 File(s)167,936 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\libmysqltest\debug 31/01/03 11:37a 122,943 myTest.exe 1 File(s)122,943 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\libmysqltest\release 31/01/03 11:37a49,152 myTest.exe 1 File(s) 49,152 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\lib_debug 31/01/03 11:37a 467,005 libmySQL.dll 1 File(s)467,005 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\lib_release 31/01/03 11:36a 278,528 libmySQL.dll 1 File(s)278,528 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\myisampack\debug 31/01/03 11:37a 553,025 myisampack.exe 1 File(s)553,025 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\myisampack\release 31/01/03 11:37a 311,296 myisampack.exe 1 File(s)311,296 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\my_print_defaults\Debug 31/01/03 11:37a 319,567 my_print_defaults.exe 1 File(s)319,567 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\my_print_defaults\Release 31/01/03 11:37a 180,224 my_print_defaults.exe 1 File(s)180,224 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\PERROR\Debug 31/01/03 11:38a 294,969 perror.exe 1 File(s)294,969 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\THR_TEST
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 indicative of the inability to read the documentation. PostgreSQL on Cygwin runs as a service if and only if you ask it to. I would say that not supporting those who have an inability to read documentation would count as inferior Windows support. :-) 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 install postgres, install parts of cygwin if necessary, and set up postgres as a service? cjs -- Curt Sampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 install postgres, install parts of cygwin if necessary, and set up postgres as a service? The non-code related parts of the Win32 port of PostgreSQL that are being looked at: + Working on the packaging bits (slick install program) already. Have created a project - pgsqlwin - on GBorg to hold any specific bits we need. http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pgsqlwin/projdisplay.php First release of the *extremely alpha* Proof of Concept version is at: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/pgsql/PgSQL731wina1.exe?download + Concerned about including GPL stuff without having 100% totally investigated the ramifications for people including the Win32 version of PostgreSQL as a built-in part of their applications. Not going to commit anything even slightly GPL related to that GBorg project until it 100% safe to do so without affect our ability to release it as BSD. Have some preliminary information regarding this, but just need to wrap my head around it properly. Not going to look at it closely for another week or so. + It would be greatly helpful to have some way for the install program to automatically add the Log in as a service Win32 priviledge to the postgres user without having to instruct the user to do so. We can create the user automatically through a shell command, but no idea how to add that permission. If someone could do some Win32 API stuff to do it behind the scenes without a shell command even, that would be great. + The WinMaster project is a first go at creating a Win32 GUI command console for controlling the PostgreSQL service. It's still a bit too basic for real use though: http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/winmaster/projdisplay.php Further suggestions, volunteers, etc are totally welcome. :-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift cjs -- My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there. - Indira Gandhi ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 part of Cygwin transparently to me). 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 is run under the Cygwin emulation. That seems pretty straightforward. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Regards, Jeff Davis -- My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there. - Indira Gandhi ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 part of Cygwin transparently to me). That may have involved not being sufficiently observant, because the company quite clearly documents Cygwin as a dependancy. http://www.mysql.com/downloads/cygwin.html -- output = (aa454 @freenet.carleton.ca) http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/linuxxian.html Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 stepchild-Cygwin stuff too, so they won't care too much. What is interesting is that the MySQL folk don't seem to be vehemently against it, as a look at their downloads pages indicate that they depend on Cygwin for the Windows port of their product. -- output = (cbbrowne @ntlug.org) http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lisp.html What did we agree about a leader?? We agreed we wouldn't have one. Good. Now shut up and do as I say... ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 PostgreSQL is run under the Cygwin emulation. That seems pretty straightforward. 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 feature. Unlike PostgreSQL, which is run under the Cygwin emulation, MySQL runs as a native Windows application (with Cygwin emulation). Apparently those are not at all the same thing, even though they are both using Cygwin... Hmm... wonder if they're meaning that MySQL compiles and executes as a True native windows application (skipping any unix compatibility calls), and it's just some of the support utils that use cygwin, or if they're trying to say that PostgreSQL has to operate entirely in the cygwin environment, whereas they don't? Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there. - Indira Gandhi ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 feature. Unlike PostgreSQL, which is run under the Cygwin emulation, MySQL runs as a native Windows application (with Cygwin emulation). Apparently those are not at all the same thing, even though they are both using Cygwin... 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 is little question that they are as emulated as is the current PostgreSQL/Win32 effort. Care to expand on exactly what you believe the distinction is? ...or did I miss the humor boat? :( Regards, -- Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copeland Computer Consulting ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 PostgreSQL is run under the Cygwin emulation. That seems pretty straightforward. 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 feature. Unlike PostgreSQL, which is run under the Cygwin emulation, MySQL runs as a native Windows application (with Cygwin emulation). Apparently those are not at all the same thing, even though they are both using Cygwin... Justin Clift replied: Hmm... wonder if they're meaning that MySQL compiles and executes as a True native windows application (skipping any unix compatibility calls), and it's just some of the support utils that use cygwin, or if they're trying to say that PostgreSQL has to operate entirely in the cygwin environment, whereas they don't? I just downloaded the latest productin source (3.3.55) and it appears to me that: 1) It uses Cygwin emulation via a dll. 2) It uses Visual Studio C++ 6.0 for the primary build environment. It compiles out of the box without having to learn Unix-style build systems, config, make, etc. No warnings, no errors, it just builds out of the box. If I did not have a lot of experience building databases I certainly would have found their support for Windows compelling. This is a big reason why they are #1. 3) The statement by the MySQL folks above that MySQL runs as a native Windows application (a service on NT/2000/XP) is indicative of why MySQL is kicking PostgreSQL's butt in terms of popularity. It is marketing speak at its best. It is technically true, MySQL runs as a service. As Christopher Browne points out, they still use the Cygwin Emulation layer. The statement is misleading, however, as it implies that they don't use any emulation but they do. The salient points: 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. b) MySQL recognizes that the important issue is to appear to be a well supported Windows application rather than to actually be one. c) It is probably much easier to add the support for running as an NT service than it is to write a true native port with no Cygwin dependency. NT Service support is basically a single funtion wrapper for certain API calls (startup, shutdown, etc.) that enable the Windows administration tools to deal with all servers in a similar manner. They have worked on that which makes them look better, makes their prospective customers happier, and makes it easier to support. Exactly what any good product development organization that listens to their customers would have done. flame on IMHO, PostgreSQL will never have the same level of use in the field as MySQL currently does as long as there is the kind head in the sand attitude about Windows that I've seen here on the hackers list, especially as evidenced by the recent outright attacks against those who are simply trying to port PostgreSQL to the largest platform out there today. There have been some very legitimate points about Windows being a new platform, one that will likely see a lot of users, and therefore one that should be more thoroughly tested before release than the typical port to another flavor of *nix. However, the way the conversation started reminds me of some of the chat discussions I've seen between young teens. I was a Mac developer way, way back and long ago realized that the best often loses and that better marketing beats better engineering every single time. \flame off DISCLAIMER: I hate Microsoft and Windows drives me nuts. - Curtis ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
- 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 is little question that they are as emulated as is the current PostgreSQL/Win32 effort. Care to expand on exactly what you believe the distinction is? ...or did I miss the humor boat? :( I just installed it (their latest gama), to see what was there (and uninstalled it straight away ;-). There was a cygwinb19.dll (I think that's what it was called) installed. In any case, if we are talking about industrial strength, is this the comparison we should be using? ;-) andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
[Fwd: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System]
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], [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: 002101c2c625$e3204e30$a200a8c0@curtislaptop [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Lane wrote: Curtis Faith 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 use it for Windows projects than MySQL which requires the CygWin tools (this means really a Unix product to Windows developers). 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 instability of the platform, not to mention the likelihood that it ignores Unix semantics for fsync() and suchlike critical primitives. I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. OK, I have to weigh in here. I have been a Windows application and kernel driver developer since version 1.0. I have also worked on UNIX since the original Sun machines. Yes, the DOS version of Windows, i.e win95/98/ME is pure unmitigated crap. No doubt. The NT version of Windows, NT/2K/XP has a very well designed kernel. It is more or less based on OpenVMS. To say it is a poor stepchild shows a lack of imagination on your part. The NT lineage of Windows is usable as a production server. I think PostgreSQL using the most pedestrian Win32 API entry points will perform just fine. The core disk I/O subsystem and NTFS are very stable. The scheduler is not great, but is usable. The VM system is probably better than most UNIX environments, including FreeBSD and Linux. The always interruptable always reentrant device driver design could crank out some serious performance on a busy server. That being said, the kernel level GUI of Windows is a dangerous risk. Many of the changes made since the original NT (3.x) do reduce stability in a desktop environment. However, a server environment, such as PG, which does not perform any graphic interactions should be stable enough. If rebooted once a every month or two, the system should never experience data loss and windows admins are used to doing periodic reboots. One last, IMHO very important point, A LOT OF PEOPLE USE WINDOWS! Every effort should be made to support it. Yea, we all have our favorite environments. I choose Linux, others choose a *BSD, some use HPUX, Solaris or whatever. The point is a lot people choose Windows. It is possible to make a stable environment on this platform. Would I choose it? No, but some people do. Don't you think it makes sense to provide a good solution on Windows, and if they run into the inherent limitations of that platform be able to say, Windows has some serious design flaws, but you can upgrade to Solaris or HPUX if you need and getting the user, instead of saying, Windows sucks, use a real platform and losing them? I think it is a AWESOME story to say, Build your app using PG. Start with Windows, if you like, we don't care, if you grow beyond the capabilities of Windows, just upgrade your server, no need to change anything else. Just my $0.02 Mark ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 feature. Unlike PostgreSQL, which is run under the Cygwin emulation, MySQL runs as a native Windows application (with Cygwin emulation). Apparently those are not at all the same thing, even though they are both using Cygwin... 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? I don't know if there's a distinction; read in whatever sarcasm is deserved by the reality of things. If the answer is yes, then there is little question that they are as emulated as is the current PostgreSQL/Win32 effort. Just so. If the answer is yes, then the MySQL folk are claiming an advantage that has no reality to it, in effect, We aren't using Cygwin emulation, so we're better... (Whoops, we're actually /using/ Cygwin emulation.) Care to expand on exactly what you believe the distinction is? ...or did I miss the humor boat? :( I'm making the generous assumption that since /they/ claim that there is some distinction, that there perhaps is one. -- (concatenate 'string cbbrowne @cbbrowne.com) http://cbbrowne.com/info/oses.html All language designers are arrogant. Goes with the territory... -- Larry Wall ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
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 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 E:\mysql-3.23.55\client_debug 31/01/03 11:36a 557,115 isamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 733,247 myisamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 602,175 myisamlog.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 487,480 mysql.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 458,813 mysqladmin.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 479,299 mysqlbinlog.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 4,296,758 mysqld.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 598,076 mysqldump.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 446,526 mysqlimport.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 573,500 mysqlshow.exe 31/01/03 12:48a45,056 mysqlshutdown.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 618,559 pack_isam.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 307,200 replace.exe 13 File(s) 10,203,804 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\client_release 31/01/03 11:36a 327,680 isamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 458,752 myisamchk.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 372,736 myisamlog.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 323,642 mysql.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 274,432 mysqladmin.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 278,528 mysqlbinlog.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 270,336 mysqlcheck.exe 31/01/03 12:35a 3,002,368 mysqld-max-nt.exe 31/01/03 12:48a 2,994,176 mysqld-max.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 2,564,096 mysqld-nt.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 2,560,000 mysqld-opt.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 286,720 mysqldump.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 266,240 mysqlimport.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 270,336 mysqlshow.exe 31/01/03 12:48a45,056 mysqlshutdown.exe 31/01/03 12:48a49,152 mysqlwatch.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 274,432 pack_isam.exe 31/01/03 11:38a 167,936 perror.exe 31/01/03 11:37a 188,416 replace.exe 19 File(s) 14,975,034 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\COMP_ERR\Release 31/01/03 11:36a 167,936 comp-err.exe 1 File(s)167,936 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\libmysqltest\debug 31/01/03 11:37a 122,943 myTest.exe 1 File(s)122,943 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\libmysqltest\release 31/01/03 11:37a49,152 myTest.exe 1 File(s) 49,152 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\lib_debug 31/01/03 11:37a 467,005 libmySQL.dll 1 File(s)467,005 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\lib_release 31/01/03 11:36a 278,528 libmySQL.dll 1 File(s)278,528 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\myisampack\debug 31/01/03 11:37a 553,025 myisampack.exe 1 File(s)553,025 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\myisampack\release 31/01/03 11:37a 311,296 myisampack.exe 1 File(s)311,296 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\my_print_defaults\Debug 31/01/03 11:37a 319,567 my_print_defaults.exe 1 File(s)319,567 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\my_print_defaults\Release 31/01/03 11:37a 180,224 my_print_defaults.exe 1 File(s)180,224 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\PERROR\Debug 31/01/03 11:38a 294,969 perror.exe 1 File(s)294,969 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\THR_TEST\debug 31/01/03 11:37a 127,037 thr_test.exe 1 File(s)127,037 bytes Directory of E:\mysql-3.23.55\THR_TEST\release 31/01/03 11:37a53,248 thr_test.exe 1 File(s) 53,248 bytes Total Files Listed: 44 File(s) 28,103,768 bytes 0 Dir(s) 24,246,353,920 bytes free E:\mysql-3.23.55 In the morning, I started the server Daemon (E:\mysql-3.23.55\client_releasemysqld-max-nt.exe in my case). You can connect to it. You can query it. Whatever. No cygwin needed. No Mingw. No nothing. Build in Win32. Run in Win32. It's a pure, native Win32 application. Just so that everyone understands about MySQL -- the [current release] Windows port is definitely, positively a native Win32 application that needs no outside utilities to build, setup, run, or administrate. You can all stop guessing. 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 Linux, and the [usually older] corporate types that know nothing but Win32. But realize that both sets of people have real problems to solve and
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 Linux, and the [usually older] corporate types that know nothing but Win32. But realize that both sets of people have real problems to solve and a free, high quality database will be a great help to anyone. :-) The *BSD, Solaris, AIS, HP-UX, IRIX, SCO, and other unixoid partisans out there will just love this statement. The linux community here is in the minority, more than likely, to the *BSD camp. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 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. In all seriousness, it may be a good idea to create a special list server group for that exact audience. Call it Win32 PostgreSQL Users or something like that. That way, then can help each other. And the experienced PG users that can stand the noise can pop over to help from time to time. You might have one million PG users in 6 months time. Literally. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 on how good the PG guys are, it is either a blessing or a curse. I think that PG has a REAL chance to be one of THE breakthrough open source technologies. With the exception of OpenOffice, I don't think there is a more important open source project than PG. Simply because SQL databases are a cooperative monopoly. MS, Oracle, and DB2 are like the record companies. They have a cooperative monopoly. Yea, they will seem to compete on price, but none of them really whant to know how low the other will go. Some may argue that Apache or PHP may take second place, but I submit that Apache and PHP are, by and large, much less expensive and much less generic products as an ACID compliant SQL databases. That being said, if a good Win32 port is made, AND it becomes common knkowledge, the use count may square. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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: 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. In all seriousness, it may be a good idea to create a special list server group for that exact audience. Call it Win32 PostgreSQL Users or something like that. That way, then can help each other. And the experienced PG users that can stand the noise can pop over to help from time to time. You might have one million PG users in 6 months time. Literally. no doubt ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 just trying to figure out which side of the coin is the shinny one. ;) There's a tool that comes with either the resource kit or the VC++ stuff that will tell you information like what ldd does. I don't recall the name of the tool. Can anyone comment if cygwin (or equivalent) is being linked in (statically or dynamically)? -- Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copeland Computer Consulting ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 directories (system, windows, etc). My point being, just because you didn't find it in the mysql directory, doesn't mean it wasn't installed system-wide. Not saying it does or doesn't do this. Just offering something else that may need to be looked at. Regards, -- Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copeland Computer Consulting ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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, 2003-01-31 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. After I built it from source code (using Visual Studio with Intel C++), I installed it. Please take note that the cygwin dll is normally installed into one of the window's directories (system, windows, etc). My point being, just because you didn't find it in the mysql directory, doesn't mean it wasn't installed system-wide. MySQL for Win32 has no connection whatsoever with anything from Cygwin or Mingw Not saying it does or doesn't do this. Just offering something else that may need to be looked at. Certainly a good idea. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 NTFS before. NTFS was kind enough to detect an inconsistency during boot and repaired the file system by simply removing any and all references to the top level damaged directory (on down). Sure, the file system was in a known good state following the repair but the 2-days to recover from it, pretty much stunk! Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it doesn't go toes up, just that in my experience (going back the NT3.1) it's not a daily occurance. You also compared NTFS with ext2. That's not exactly fair. Better you should compare NTFS with ext3, XFS, JFS, ReiserFS. It's a better, more fair comparison, as now we're talking about the same category of file system. I realise the differences, but I don't currently use ext3, xfs, jfs or reiserfs on any of my production boxes so can't make any observations about them. I did, less than a month ago, lose and entire pg data directory on an ext2 partition though :-( Regards, Dave. ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 doesn't have the latter, although the recent efforts make a move towards it. And what about MySQL? What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port requires Cygwin. Is that true or not? http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-3.23.html Windows downloads The Windows binaries use the Cygwin library. Source code for the version of Cygwin we have used is available on this page. http://www.mysql.com/downloads/cygwin.html -- (reverse (concatenate 'string gro.gultn@ enworbbc)) http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spiritual.html When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), English author. Sherlock Holmes, in The Sign of Four, ch. 6 (1889). [...but see the Holmesian Fallacy, due to Bob Frankston... http://www.frankston.com/public/Essays/Holmesian%20Fallacy.asp] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 native Windows port, but I bet there are some... That's why I proposed an automated test for this too. It is mostly important when conquering new OS'es, but could also be nice to have when testing if changes to storage manager or some other important subsystem will break anything. regards, tom lane -- Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 trying to sort out for the last couple of months. Apologies for that folks. Momentary lack of good judgement on my part. Regards, Dave. ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 sources which I have lying about [*]: [*] danged legacy applications ;-) --QUOTE START-- Windows Source Distribution --- You will need the following: * VC++ 6.0 compiler (updated with 4 or 5 SP and Pre-processor package) The Pre-processor package is necessary for the macro assembler. More details at: `http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/sp/vs6sp5/faq.asp'. * The MySQL source distribution for Windows, which can be downloaded from `http://www.mysql.com/downloads/'. Building MySQL 1. Create a work directory (e.g., workdir). 2. Unpack the source distribution in the aforementioned directory. 3. Start the VC++ 6.0 compiler. 4. In the `File' menu, select `Open Workspace'. 5. Open the `mysql.dsw' workspace you find on the work directory. 6. From the `Build' menu, select the `Set Active Configuration' menu. 7. Click over the screen selecting `mysqld - Win32 Debug' and click OK. 8. Press `F7' to begin the build of the debug server, libs, and some client applications. 9. When the compilation finishes, copy the libs and the executables to a separate directory. 10. Compile the release versions that you want, in the same way. 11. Create the directory for the MySQL stuff: e.g., `c:\mysql' 12. From the workdir directory copy for the c:\mysql directory the following directories: * Data * Docs * Share 13. Create the directory `c:\mysql\bin' and copy all the servers and clients that you compiled previously. 14. If you want, also create the `lib' directory and copy the libs that you compiled previously. 15. Do a clean using Visual Studio. Set up and start the server in the same way as for the binary Windows distribution. *Note Windows prepare environment::. --QUOTE END-- Ian Barwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 be more likely to use it for Windows projects than MySQL which requires the CygWin tools (this means really a Unix product to Windows developers). 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 instability of the platform, not to mention the likelihood that it ignores Unix semantics for fsync() and suchlike critical primitives. I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. flame off OK, I have to weigh in here. I have been a Windows application and kernel driver developer since version 1.0. I have also worked on UNIX since the original Sun machines. Yes, the DOS version of Windows, i.e win95/98/ME is pure unmitigated crap. No doubt. The NT version of Windows, NT/2K/XP has a very well designed kernel. It is more or less based on OpenVMS. To say it is a poor stepchild shows a lack of imagination on your part. The NT lineage of Windows is usable as a production server. I think PostgreSQL using the most pedestrian Win32 API entry points will perform just fine. The core disk I/O subsystem and NTFS are very stable. The scheduler is not great, but is usable. The VM system is probably better than most UNIX environments, including FreeBSD and Linux. The always interruptable always reentrant device driver design could crank out some serious performance on a busy server. That being said, the kernel level GUI of Windows is a dangerous risk. Many of the changes made since the original NT (3.x) do reduce stability in a desktop environment. However, a server environment, such as PG, which does not perform any graphic interactions should be stable enough. If rebooted once a every month or two, the system should never experience data loss and windows admins are used to doing periodic reboots. One last, IMHO very important point, A LOT OF PEOPLE USE WINDOWS! Every effort should be made to support it. Yea, we all have our favorite environments. I choose Linux, others choose a *BSD, some use HPUX, Solaris or whatever. The point is a lot people choose Windows. It is possible to make a stable environment on this platform. Would I choose it? No, but some people do. Don't you think it makes sense to provide a good solution on Windows, and if they run into the inherent limitations of that platform be able to say, Windows has some serious design flaws, but you can upgrade to Solaris or HPUX if you need and getting the user, instead of saying, Windows sucks, use a real platform and losing them? I think it is a AWESOME story to say, Build your app using PG. Start with Windows, if you like, we don't care, if you grow beyond the capabilities of Windows, just upgrade your server, no need to change anything else. Just my $0.02 Mark ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 documentation. PostgreSQL on Cygwin runs as a service if and only if you ask it to. -- Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 basically saying is _do_ 'kill -9' the postmaster... and make sure it recovers gracefully when testing for an industrial- strength solution. Not what I said at all. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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/developer doesn't hold things to the same standards as the unix user/developer. I ought to plonk you for a comment like that. Especially coming from the person who's crap I've been trying to sort out for the last couple of months. Since you're pretty much ignoring my reasoning, I'll give you the same consideration. The history of windows as a platform has shown itself to be rather fragile compared to unix. 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. Before you respond to this, read Tom Lane's response and reply to that. *I* did. I volunteered to do some more of the testing we're all so resistant. Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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. Until I had to upgrade RAM I had 240+ days of uptime on one box. The longest power interruption was 28 hours. The battery held the whole time. There was never more than 30 days between interruptions. The last time I had the server actually power down was during a maintenance run on the inverter/charge system, and I had to transfer power to the servers onto another branch, necessitating two power cycles, which were clean shutdown/reboots. I haven't had an unscheduled dirty powerdown in two years. We cannot on any system guarantee the data surviving a sudden power outage. Until we can be certain the write-back cache on that high performance drive (or NAS array using iSCSI, perhaps) flushes we cannot know the data hit the disks. To go to that extreme for Win32 when we caution against something as mundane as a kill -9 of postmaster on Unix is absurd. And, yes, I know the difference. I also know that the AC power pull has nothing to do with PostgreSQL, but it has to do with the OS under it. Although a kill -9, from the point of view of the running process, is identical to a power failure. No, it is not. Did you not read my comments earlier today? Of course I did -- I'm not daft. And that's why I specified 'from the point of view of the running process' -- that is, the process you are SIGKILLing cannot itself determine the difference between the power cycle and SIGKILL. It just simply goes down, hard. Of course there is: I forgot to mention one of the biggest headaches, which is that kill -9 the postmaster doesn't kill the child backends. This is a real difference, and one that I forgot as well. So SIGKILL is different to the whole backend system, but not to the singular process that is being SIGKILL'd. Suppose I issue a SIGKILL to postmaster and all forked backends simultaneously? Where does SIGKILL differ from a power failure from the point of view of the database system in that scenario? This is also assuming that you clean reboot the OS after the SIGKILL to postmaster, as there is that dynamic state you mentioned to worry about. I probably should have mentioned that before. Windows is going to bring a whole new set of failure modes that we don't have defenses for. (Yet.) *That* is what we need extensive testing to learn about, and claiming that we are discriminating against Windows just because it's Windows misses the point completely. And ISTM that an experienced Windows developer, such as Katie or Dave, would know to do this, would know how to do this, and would know the best way of doing this. And I wasn't singling you out, Tom. It was the whole thread and the turns it took that got me rather upset. Or, if you prefer, we can ship Postgres 7.4 for Windows with no more testing than we need for any of the existing, long-since-well-tested ports. But I'll bet a great deal that our reputation will go down the drain (along with many people's data) if we do that. We don't have a standard testing methodology for any of our ports. We need one for all of our ports. I fully expect the Win32 port to need a different methodology than the FreeBSD port or the Linux port. And I expect we have enough experienced Win32 developers (which I am not) here that can provide insight into how the methodologies should differ. I prefer more extensive testing for all of our ports. You did read that when I wrote it, right? (When I wrote it multiple times) Just saying 'it passed regression' shouldn't be enough -- but we should really spend some cycles thinking about what the test suite really should be. For all platforms. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
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 better than the existing 'supported' solution. 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; Sure. But it's only common sense that a piece of software is only as reliable as the platform it's running on. People run production databases under MS-SQL all the time. Has MS-SQL itself gained a reputation for being an unreliable piece of junk? Perhaps. But if so, that obviously hasn't stopped people from putting their production databases on it! Is MS-SQL's reputation for unreliability, if any, because of MS-SQL itself or the platform it's operating on? The way to answer that is to ask the same question of Oracle and DB/2 under Windows. And therefore, the answer seems to be that the platform is a minor determinant, if any. whereas I doubt many people would think that about the Cygwin-based port. Why not? Seriously, if the people in question are the simpletons that you appear to be expecting them to be, then wouldn't they have that same expectation of the Cygwin based port? Why not? So what we need to know is whether the platform is actually stable enough that that's a reasonable thing to do; so that we can plaster the docs with appropriate disclaimers if necessary. Well, shouldn't we do that anyway, then, until we know otherwise? Shouldn't we do that with *any* new port? Windows, unlike the other OSes mentioned in this thread, has a long enough and sorry enough track record that it seems appropriate to run such tests ... 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, pull the power, bring the system back up, and restart the build. And the end result was that some of the files files in the build directory were corrupted, such that the build could not continue. I haven't tried this under current versions of the kernel, so I don't know if things have improved or not. Doesn't that -- shouldn't that -- give you pause about declaring *Linux* an industrial-strength solution? My point: if you're going to hold *one* OS to a given standard, you should hold *all* of them to that same standard. -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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. I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest software audience in the world were completely ignored. Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to make money; they're even obligated to do so. That's true, but it ignores the question that makes it relevant: has their appearance in the Windows market tarnished their reputation? More precisely, has it tarnished their reputation in the *Unix* community? The answer, I think, is no. And that *is* relevant to us, because our concern is about the reputation of PostgreSQL, and what will happen to it if we release a native Windows port to the world. Of course, you could argue that Oracle and IBM didn't have much of a reputation anyway, and I wouldn't be able to say much to that. :-) -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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, pull the power, bring the system back up, and restart the build. And the end result was that some of the files files in the build directory were corrupted, such that the build could not continue. Afaik, ReiserFS does not guarantee data consistency, only meta data. As in, the file system itself will be consistent, and an fsck shouldn't find a problem. Kurt ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 make of a large project, pull the power, bring the system back up, and restart the build. And the end result was that some of the files files in the build directory were corrupted, such that the build could not continue. Afaik, ReiserFS does not guarantee data consistency, only meta data. As in, the file system itself will be consistent, and an fsck shouldn't find a problem. Exactly. Does NTFS? Not as far as I know. Why should we hold NTFS to a standard that ReiserFS doesn't meet? That said, I do agree with Tom that the Windows port is basically virgin territory and needs to be approached with caution. But we shouldn't be so cautious that we hesitate to release the port to the world (sufficient disclaimers are appropriate, as with any new port)... -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 release. 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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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? Different from pulling the plug. 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. But does the fact that PG 6.4 ran reliably on HP-UX 10 mean PG 7.4 will run as reliably on HP-UX 11? Does the fact that PG 6.2.1 ran well on Linux kernel 2.0.30 with libc 5.3.12 mean PG 7.4 will run well on Linux 2.6.x with glibc 2.4.x? The OS is also a moving target. Hmph. PG 7.3 won't even build on Red Hat 5.2, for instance. So much for track record. 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 release. Track record means nothing if sufficient items have changed in the underlying OS. I remember the Linux fiasco with PostgreSQL 6.3.1. It was so bad that Red Hat was considering releasing Red Hat 5.1 with a CVS checkout of pre-6.3.2. That is not Red Hat's normal policy. Also, between major versions enough may have changed to make it necessary to test thoroughly -- WAL, for instance. MVCC for another instance. PITR is going to be another instance requiring a different test methodology. One will indeed be required to blow down the whole system to properly test PITR, on all platforms. Track record indicates that all of our x.y.1 releases are typically hosed in some fashion. 7.3.1 proved that wrong. Track record only requires a single failure to invalidate -- and we should test for those failures across the board, regardless of track record. Records are meant to be broken. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 Cygwin. Is that true or not? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 it isn't stable enough. I'm not jumping on one side or the other but I wanted to make clear on something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest software audience in the world were completely ignored. Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to make money; they're even obligated to do so. That's true, but it ignores the question that makes it relevant: has their appearance in the Windows market tarnished their reputation? More precisely, has it tarnished their reputation in the *Unix* community? The answer, I think, is no. And that *is* relevant to us, because our concern is about the reputation of PostgreSQL, and what will happen to it if we release a native Windows port to the world. More to the point, does the unreliable Cygwin port possibly do our reputation any good? It is known to crash with corruptions under less than heavy load. 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 stepchild-Cygwin stuff too, so they won't care too much. Anyone here who likes the Cygwin port or can we yank it out right now? Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 what is on disk at any given instant and whether you can make all the bits on disk consistent again. (And also about whether your filesystem can perform the equivalent exercise for its own metadata; which is why we are questioning Windows here. I've never (to my knowledge) lost any data following a powerfail or system crash on a system using NTFS - that has always seemed pretty solid to me. By comparison, I have lost data on ext2 filesystems on a couple of occasions. More info at: http://www.ntfs.com/data-integrity.htm http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/relRec-c.html 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 documentation that the user is strongly advised to use only NTFS filesystems. I realise this is not proof that it actually works of course... Regards, Dave. ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 of postmaster on Unix is absurd. And, yes, I know the difference. I also know that the AC power pull has nothing to do with PostgreSQL, but it has to do with the OS under it. Although a kill -9, from the point of view of the running process, is identical to a power failure. No, it is not. Did you not read my comments earlier today? The reasons why we are concerned about kill -9 have *nothing* to do with whether the database can survive system crashes. Rather, the issues created by kill -9 have to do with coping with leftover state from a previous postmaster in the same system lifecycle. I forgot to mention one of the biggest headaches, which is that kill -9 the postmaster doesn't kill the child backends. We've got an interlock that tries to prevent starting a new postmaster when there are still old children around, but it's one of the things that I think is most likely to break on any new port. (And I'm dead certain that that code doesn't work on Windows.) It's that sort of thing that we have painfully worked out on Unix-based systems, and are going to have to do over again for Windows. In many places we are probably not even going to realize that we have to do something over again, until someone gets bitten. The fact that Postgres is reliable does not come (only) from the code being right in some abstract sense that will carry over to a new platform. A big reason it's reliable is that we have painfully learned about Unix-ish failure modes and put in defenses against them. Windows is going to bring a whole new set of failure modes that we don't have defenses for. (Yet.) *That* is what we need extensive testing to learn about, and claiming that we are discriminating against Windows just because it's Windows misses the point completely. Or, if you prefer, we can ship Postgres 7.4 for Windows with no more testing than we need for any of the existing, long-since-well-tested ports. But I'll bet a great deal that our reputation will go down the drain (along with many people's data) if we do that. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 documentation that the user is strongly advised to use only NTFS filesystems. This is exactly the kind of thing we have to learn about and document. Which Windows releases can be trusted, which filesystems are okay, what other stuff do you need to stay away from? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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.
Claiming that it doesn't require an increased level of testing is
somewhere between ridiculous and irresponsible.
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 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 :-(
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.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 side or the other but I wanted to make clear on something. The fact that IBM or Oracle use windows has absolutely zero to do with reliability or stability. They are there because the market is willing to spend money on their product. Let's face it, the share holders of each respective company would come unglued if the largest software audience in the world were completely ignored. Simple fact is, your example really is pretty far off from supporting any view. Bluntly stated, both are in that market because they want to make money; they're even obligated to do so. -- Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copeland Computer Consulting ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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:
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. Claiming that it doesn't require an
increased level of testing is somewhere between ridiculous
and irresponsible.
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 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 :-(
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.
Our port of 7.1.3 passed every test, including the dynamic loading.
I don't expect the Win32 port to be problematic.
---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 In the pull-the-plug case you have to worry about what is on disk at any given instant and whether you can make all the bits on disk consistent again. (And also about whether your filesystem can perform the equivalent exercise for its own metadata; which is why we are questioning Windows here. I've never (to my knowledge) lost any data following a powerfail or system crash on a system using NTFS - that has always seemed pretty solid to me. By comparison, I have lost data on ext2 filesystems on a couple of occasions. More info at: http://www.ntfs.com/data-integrity.htm http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/relRec-c.html 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 documentation that the user is strongly advised to use only NTFS filesystems. I realise this is not proof that it actually works of course... I have lost entire directory trees (and all associated data) on NTFS before. NTFS was kind enough to detect an inconsistency during boot and repaired the file system by simply removing any and all references to the top level damaged directory (on down). Sure, the file system was in a known good state following the repair but the 2-days to recover from it, pretty much stunk! I would also like to point out that this damage/repair occurred on a RAID-5 box (hardware, not software). As the repairs placed the file system back into known good state, the raid hardware was happy to obey. Guess what, it did! :( Make no mistake about it. You can easily lose large amounts of data on NTFS. You also compared NTFS with ext2. That's not exactly fair. Better you should compare NTFS with ext3, XFS, JFS, ReiserFS. It's a better, more fair comparison, as now we're talking about the same category of file system. -- Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copeland Computer Consulting ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
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 truly new port, onto a system without any Unix background, that we have ever done AFAIK. Claiming that it doesn't require an increased level of testing is somewhere between ridiculous and irresponsible. I am saying that as we mature we need increased testing across the board. And it is a very low percentage of code that is tied into the OS API, right? The majority of the code (the vast majority) isn't touched by it. 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 :-( Reread my statement above. I _agree_ with the rationale -- but I fear it will have the opposite impact. And I am not convinced that just because we have good history with the unixoid ports means that we can slack on them -- Linux, *BSD, etc all change. The strftime(3) breakage with RedHat of a cycle ago should show us that much. I suspect there will be problems on Win32 -- it is, after all, a new port. But if we're going to immediately throw pathological test cases at it that we're not even bothering to test against now, that immediately throws up a flag to me. And TESTING IS BEING DONE on the Win32 port, nobody is yet trying to put the PGDG blessing on it as yet, and progress is being made by those who wish to see it made. It is still being touted as beta software, right? The patches from Jan are very preliminary still, correct? Katie hasn't issued a press release saying that it's not beta, right? hyperbole I don't see what the uproar is about, other than 'Win32 is so unstable that it can't possibly work as well as you are seeing it work -- you must be doing something wrong. Test it harder. Pull the plug repeatedly!! Test it until it breaks! HA! Told you it would break! (yeah, firing up the old oxyacetlyene torch and hitting the hard drive with a 6,000 degree flame did the trick -- this has got to be a bad operating system!)' /hyperbole And, by the way, who in their right mind tests a database server by repeated yanking of the AC power? To go to that extreme for Win32 when we caution against something as mundane as a kill -9 of postmaster on Unix is absurd. And, yes, I know the difference. I also know that the AC power pull has nothing to do with PostgreSQL, but it has to do with the OS under it. Although a kill -9, from the point of view of the running process, is identical to a power failure. It simply dies (unless it becomes a zombie, in which case it is undead) either way. The effects of a kill -9 shouldn't be as severe as a power fail, since the OS can properly flush written buffers even after the process writing them has died. And I also can point the finger at some Unix swervers (spelling intentional) that would fail that test in a miserable way. I can also point at a few VMS machines that couldn't pass that test. I've even seen machines blow up due to improper power cycling. And I've seen Win2k machines come right up after repeated power blips (I've also seen them not come up). It really depends upon what the hard disk is doing at the instant the regulators drop out the 5 and 12V supplies (and which supply goes out first, which can depend upon the respective loads -- for modern Pentium 4 systems the 12V will probably go down first since it is more heavily loaded than the 5V supply in these systems). Under certain conditions where the 12V goes down before the 5V does, the head might still be writing as the servo spirals towards park, causing all manner of damage (maybe even to servo information, which normally cannot be written). So the power cycle becomes a test of hardware, too, played Russian Roulette-style. Talk about an unscientific test. A database server that needs that kind of testing is going to be hardened hardware on a doubly redundant UPS anyway. But, then again I've seen a Linux server survive a power cycle with no lost data (ext3 filesystem -- I've seen lost data with ext2). And I've seen the same server barf all over itself due to a single bit error in memory. Blew out the entire root filesystem, which was journaled and residing on a RAID 1 partition (the corruption was perfectly mirrored, by the way). Serves me right for not having ECC RAM installed at the time. 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. I fully expect that Katie, Jan, Dave, and all the others working on this share your concerns and want the Win32 port to be as solid as is possible on that OS. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 record as not liking Windows. But:
But as to 'industrial strength testing' -- do ANY of our releases get
this sort of testing on ANY platform? No, typically it's 'regression
passed' 'Ok, it's supported on that platform.'
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 out.
Testing is being done. Those who are testing it are comfortable so far in its
capabilities. We will hear about it, loadly, when that changes, I'm sure.
Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a
Unix variant.
Which is pretty ironic, given Win's reputation, right?
Partly this is a matter of wanting to protect Postgres' reputation.
And here's where the rubber meets the road. We, like many developers of
software (open source and otherwise) have worked on this for so long and so
hard that we have personified the program and it has become our child, so to
speak. As a father of four, I know what that can do. We will protect our
child at any cost, vehemently so. I for one can recognize this, and further
recognize that _it's_just_a_program_ (!) and not my child. This is hard
to do. We're seeing our child experiment with what we consider to be bad
company, and the defense mechanism is kicking in.
Just on sheer numbers, if there is a native Windows port then there are
likely to be huge numbers of people using Postgres on Windows. If
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. I believe we should test every release as pathologically as Vince
has stated for Win32. The more reliable we become, the worse our test cases
should become. Across the board, and not just on Win32.
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?'). I for one don't want that to be a
conclusion -- but the 'suits' will see it that way, rest assured.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 been on both sides know that the windows user/developer doesn't hold things to the same standards as the unix user/developer. I ought to plonk you for a comment like that. Especially coming from the person who's crap I've been trying to sort out for the last couple of months. Grow up Dave. That shit doesn't belong on this or any other list. If you didn't want to do something, you shouldn't have volunteered to do it. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 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 postmaster... and make sure it recovers gracefully when testing for an industrial- strength solution. Not what I said at all. It's not far off, but it's quite amusing none the less. What I read from your postings it that you are demanding more rigourous testing for a new major feature *prior* to it being comitted to CVS in a dev cycle than I think we ever gave any previous new feature even in the beta test phase. I don't object to testing, and have been thinking about coding something to address Tom's concerns, but let's demand heavy testing for the right reasons, not just to try to justify not doing a Win32 port. 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' solution. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 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 postmaster... and make sure it recovers gracefully when testing for an industrial- strength solution. Not what I said at all. It's not far off, but it's quite amusing none the less. 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 of passing the pull-the-plug test if you can't survive even kill -9. Perhaps we could have a special reliability-regression test that does kill -9 postmaster, repeatedly, at random intervals, and checks for consistency ? Maybe we will find even some options for some OS'es to force-unmount disks. I guess that setting IDE disk's to read-only with hdparm could possibly achieve something like that on Linux. What I read from your postings it that you are demanding more rigourous testing for a new major feature *prior* to it being comitted to CVS in a dev cycle than I think we ever gave any previous new feature even in the beta test phase. I don't object to testing, and have been thinking about coding something to address Tom's concerns, but let's demand heavy testing for the right reasons, not just to try to justify not doing a Win32 port. Nice try. I've demanded nothing, quit twisting my words to fit your argument. If you're going to test and call it conclusive, do some conclusive testing or call it something else. So we have no conclusive testing done that /proves/ postgres to be reliable ? I guess that such thing (positive conclusive reliability test) is impossible even in theory. But Dave has done some testing that could not prove the opposite and concluded that it is good enough for him. So I guess that his test were if fact conclusive, if only just for him ;) Sometimes it is very hard to do the pull-the-plug test - I've seen people pondering over a HP server they could not switch off after accidentally powering it up. Pulling the plug just made it beep, but did not switch it off ;) But I suspect that since you don't know the difference between yanking the plug and kill -9 this conversation is a waste of time. I assume you realize that U can't kill -9 the plug ;) -- Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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. In the pull-the-plug case you have to worry about what is on disk at any given instant and whether you can make all the bits on disk consistent again. (And also about whether your filesystem can perform the equivalent exercise for its own metadata; which is why we are questioning Windows here. Oracle's Windows port may have an advantage, if they bypass the OS to do raw disk I/O as they do on other platforms.) In the kill -9 case there is no risk of losing data consistency on disk, because the OS isn't crashing; whatever we last wrote we can expect to read. The issue for kill -9 is whether we can deal with leftover dynamic state, like pre-existing shared memory segments, pre-existing SysV semaphores, TCP port numbers that the kernel won't reassign until some timeout expires, that kind of fun stuff. 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 native Windows port, but I bet there are some... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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' solution. 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 the Cygwin-based port. So what we need to know is whether the platform is actually stable enough that that's a reasonable thing to do; so that we can plaster the docs with appropriate disclaimers if necessary. Windows, unlike the other OSes mentioned in this thread, has a long enough and sorry enough track record that it seems appropriate to run such tests ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 the Cygwin-based port. So what we need to know is whether the platform is actually stable enough that that's a reasonable thing to do; so that we can plaster the docs with appropriate disclaimers if necessary. Windows, unlike the other OSes mentioned in this thread, has a long enough and sorry enough track record that it seems appropriate to run such tests ... I think it's just developer backlash to Win32. I am on record (see the archives) as not wanting the Win32 port -- but the vitriol I've seen in this thread from several people is entirely uncalled for and is sickening. Dave appears to have tested this Win32 beta at least as much as a regular PostgreSQL release would be tested. These tests are being held to artificially high standards, simply because it's native Win32. That is disgusting. And poor Katie just got _slammed_ -- and she's the lead developer. 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 of testing because they know better than the regular user would about what conditions can cause crashes. I don't like the thoughts of native Win32 either. I think Win32 should die a long horrible death. But that doesn't give me the right to publicly ridicule the folks that want to use PostgreSQL, even if it's in an 'industrial strength setting,' on Win32. The BSD license indemnifies us anyway. So what's the problem. The developers don't like Win32. That's the problem. But as to 'industrial strength testing' -- do ANY of our releases get this sort of testing on ANY platform? No, typically it's 'regression passed' 'Ok, it's supported on that platform.' -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 of testing because they know better than the regular user would about what conditions can cause crashes. Don't twist what I said. My statement about Katie was that she has a knowledge of the port and the OS to the point where there are things that she knows are wrong to do and would avoid doing it. In the case of this port the idea is to make sure that those things that may cause the backend to close are something that SHOULD be tested. By their own admission they haven't been doing that. All they've done is loaded it down and made sure it continued to work. The other ports have a long history, the windows port has ZERO history. If you're being sickened now, how sick would you be if something went wrong and you started seeing things all over /. and other sites going on about how PG crashed and blew away some corporation's data and half the OS away on something that at worse should have only caused the backend to close? It won't matter that it was running on windows, it would have been a native port that was blessed by the PGDG. If anything, the resistance to this testing should sicken you. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 the problem. Sure, we're on record as not liking Windows. But: But as to 'industrial strength testing' -- do ANY of our releases get this sort of testing on ANY platform? No, typically it's 'regression passed' 'Ok, it's supported on that platform.' 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 out. Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a Unix variant. Partly this is a matter of wanting to protect Postgres' reputation. Just on sheer numbers, if there is a native Windows port then there are likely to be huge numbers of people using Postgres on Windows. If that's not going to be a reliable combination, we need to know it and tell them so up-front. Otherwise, people will be blaming Postgres, not Windows, when they lose data. It's an entirely different situation from whether Postgres-on-Joe-Blow's-Unix-Variant loses data, first because of visibility, and second because of the different user base. Am I being paranoid to suspect that the average Postgres-on-Windows user will be less clueful than the average Postgres-on-Unix user? I don't think so. Between the population factors and Windows' hard-earned reputation for unreliability, we would be irresponsible not to be asking tough questions here. If the Windows partisans don't think Windows should be held to a higher standard than the platforms we already deal with, why not? Are they afraid that their platform won't pass the scrutiny? 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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 what I said. My statement about Katie was that she has a knowledge of the port and the OS to the point where there are things that she knows are wrong to do and would avoid doing it. Then she would not be honestly testing, would she? admission they haven't been doing that. All they've done is loaded it down and made sure it continued to work. The other ports have a long history, the windows port has ZERO history. Do we do powerfail testing on a unix-type port now? That's not testing the port, incidentally, it's testing the OS, sync semantics aside. Do we hold the other ports to the same standards? Yes, the Win32 port is a substantial change from the Unix ports. Yes, it needs robust testing. But all the ports need that same grade of testing, not just Win32. And that type of testing is not being rigorously done on any port now, unless it is being done by a few that aren't announcing that they are doing it. And thanks to hardware write-back caching on many hard drives, powerfail testing may be moot regardless of OS or filesystem type. If you're being sickened now, how sick would you be if something went wrong and you started seeing things all over /. and other sites going on about how PG crashed and blew away some corporation's data and half the OS away on something that at worse should have only caused the backend to close? Sick enough. But that applies to all our supported platforms, not just Win32. From what I've seen and heard the 'supported' Cygwin port will barf all over itself under high load. So, the first thing I personally would test for a Win32 native port is 'how well is it performing under load?' -- after it passes that I would then throw the more pathological cases at it. It won't matter that it was running on windows, it would have been a native port that was blessed by the PGDG. So? How many users out there actually know about the PGDG? How many users have gotten PostgreSQL from their distributor of choice (whether a Linux distribution, the Cygwin distribution, FreeBSD ports, or wherever) and know nothing of PGDG or even postgresql.org? We make ourselves too important. I know enough to take all those sites with a shakerful of salt. But then again I know enough to know that the batboy didn't help Clinton or Bush do anything, 'Weekly World News' aside. We can't prevent the tabloid mentality regardless of what we do. Or don't do. The point being that if any release of anything labeled 'PostgreSQL', regardless of its status as blessed or not blessed (or even cursed) by the PGDG, does what you've said, PostgreSQL as a whole will suffer. Our blessing or cursing is meaningless to most users. Or, in slightly different words, if they can't be bothered to care that it's on Windows then they aren't going to care whether we gave it the Royal Seal of PGDG either. However, I'm sure the folks that are wanting to sell this Win32 native port care a whole lot about how much return business they get -- so I'm sure they care more about whether it is robustly tested than you give them credit. If anything, the resistance to this testing should sicken you. There isn't any resistance to this testing that I've seen. ISTM that the resistance is to the idea of a 'supported' WIn32 native port. So, let's test the Win32 native beta using your scheme, and see what falls down. And let's test Linux, *BSD, HP-UX, and AIX using the same scheme and see if it falls down. Let's just be fair about the testing. The Win32 stuff is being proclaimed as beta already -- so none are being misled into thinking it's production grade right now. But it is passing those tests that hitherto have been thrown at it -- and it seems to be passing them well. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11 ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 should not test her own releases. Don't twist what I said. My statement about Katie was that she has a knowledge of the port and the OS to the point where there are things that she knows are wrong to do and would avoid doing it. Then she would not be honestly testing, would she? She consider herself testing to her own standards as a windows user/ developer. Is that enough? IMO, No. I've been on both sides know that the windows user/developer doesn't hold things to the same standards as the unix user/developer. admission they haven't been doing that. All they've done is loaded it down and made sure it continued to work. The other ports have a long history, the windows port has ZERO history. Do we do powerfail testing on a unix-type port now? That's not testing the port, incidentally, it's testing the OS, sync semantics aside. Do we hold the other ports to the same standards? Yes, the Win32 port is a substantial change from the Unix ports. Yes, it needs robust testing. But all the ports need that same grade of testing, not just Win32. And that type of testing is not being rigorously done on any port now, unless it is being done by a few that aren't announcing that they are doing it. Since you're pretty much ignoring my reasoning, I'll give you the same consideration. The history of windows as a platform has shown itself to be rather fragile compared to unix. Before you respond to this, read Tom Lane's response and reply to that. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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] 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 Postgres port ;-). 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 sync semantics. OK, I can maybe do some testing on that next week (I'm off for a few days from today). Is there anything in particular I should look out for, or that you would want tested? Katie, can I get the latest build from anywhere? The code Katie wrote and tested, and what has been posted by me are two different things. So what has been posted might not be that solid as a rock as the beta's you got from PeerDirect. I will try to put some binaries of what I posted together over the weekend. That said, I don't quite understand the attitude of some people here. Is it that if the native Win32 port as I posted it isn't as solid and stable as v7.3 on Unix (well, some flavours), we will have to reject it? With that ruleset (ruleset, what a word in this context ;-) we would not have an SQL parser yet ... Also, so far I have the impression not many people have actually taken a look at the code itself. Everyone is busy bitching about the build environment and if it is kosher to cook the code in Cygwin milk on a Microsoft stove or not. Sorry guy's, but that's not the point! Does anyone feel that the quality of our mainstream unix product is in serious danger because of the code changes, required for the Win32 port, which affect the unix environment? If so, could those please discuss their feelings with their spouses or shrinks unless they can actually point at specific areas of the code? Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 submitted. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 out. Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a Unix variant. Partly this is a matter of wanting to protect Postgres' reputation. Just on sheer numbers, if there is a native Windows port then there are likely to be huge numbers of people using Postgres on Windows. If that's not going to be a reliable combination, we need to know it and tell them so up-front. Otherwise, people will be blaming Postgres, not Windows, when they lose data. It's an entirely different situation from whether Postgres-on-Joe-Blow's-Unix-Variant loses data, first because of visibility, and second because of the different user base. Am I being paranoid to suspect that the average Postgres-on-Windows user will be less clueful than the average Postgres-on-Unix user? I don't think so. Assuming all your assumptions are right, why the hell is Oracle's and MS SQL-Server's reputation that bloody good? And what about MySQL? They all have a native Windows (sup)port for some time ... didn't harm their reputation. I think that we got in bed with this ugly Cybill ... er ... Cygwin thing had cost us more reputation than the sucking performance of pre-7 releases all together. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 guarantee the data to hit some surface after it passed the interface ... what's your point? Are you telling me that the reliability of an EMC2 system depends on which OS it is receiving the bits from? Is SuSE as reliable as TurboLinux? Or do I have to buy AIX to get the best result? Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 of passing the pull-the-plug test if you can't survive even kill -9. Perhaps we could have a special reliability-regression test that does kill -9 postmaster, repeatedly, at random intervals, and checks for consistency ? Maybe we will find even some options for some OS'es to force-unmount disks. I guess that setting IDE disk's to read-only with hdparm could possibly achieve something like that on Linux. Get VMWare for Linux, run whatever OS you like in it and kill -9 the virtual machine. That's as close as you can get to yanking without wearing out your power plugs. Jan -- #==# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #== [EMAIL PROTECTED] # ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 use it for Windows projects than MySQL which requires the CygWin tools (this means really a Unix product to Windows developers). 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 instability of the platform, not to mention the likelihood that it ignores Unix semantics for fsync() and suchlike critical primitives. I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. flame off 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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 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 use it for Windows projects than MySQL which requires the CygWin tools (this means really a Unix product to Windows developers). 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 instability of the platform, not to mention the likelihood that it ignores Unix semantics for fsync() and suchlike critical primitives. I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. flame off regards, tom lane Wow. I've been listening to the pros and cons for a while, and they've been really interesting. However, to assume without ever using the native Windows port that it is automatically a poor stepchild is unbelievable. I believe that the port, as submitted, can be used as an industrial-strength solution. I challenge you all to prove me wrong, but until you do, please lay off the assumptions. Regards, Katie Ward Principle Developer PeerDirect Corporation ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 instability of the platform, not to mention the likelihood that it ignores Unix semantics for fsync() and suchlike critical primitives. I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. flame off regards, tom lane Wow. I've been listening to the pros and cons for a while, and they've been really interesting. However, to assume without ever using the native Windows port that it is automatically a poor stepchild is unbelievable. I believe that the port, as submitted, can be used as an industrial-strength solution. I challenge you all to prove me wrong, but until you do, please lay off the assumptions. The only assumption I see being made here is this: I believe that the port, as submitted, can be used as an industrial-strength solution. I see no evidence to support this claim. If you have this evidence, feel free to share it with the rest of us. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 that the port, as submitted, can be used as an industrial-strength solution. I see no evidence to support this claim. If you have this evidence, feel free to share it with the rest of us. I hammered the betas on a couple of test boxes running Windows XP and .NET Server of various (pre)releases and found it to be rock solid, performing comparably to my Linux based systems. The Cygwin version fell over quite quickly under the same tests. 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. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
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 stepchild platform. We should distinguish between poor stepchild from a client support perspective and a production environment perspective. What is the downside to supporting development of client products better? That is what I am really suggesting. 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. I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. All we can do is simply to make it clear that Windows is not recommended for production server use and outline all the reasons why Windows sucks for that purpose. Beyond that, if people want to shoot themselves in the head, they will do so and I don't see much point in trying to stop them. The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. flame off flame retardent on How does providing a native Windows executable that doesn't require Cygwin accomplish your objective. It seems to me that you are going to have the problem if you release a native version irrespective of the issue at hand (Visual C++ project support). I don't see how making it easier to build adds to this problem. I also don't see how making it harder for Windows client developer to adopt PostgreSQL helps anyone. flame retardent off I hate Microsoft and I don't like Windows, but I am forced to use it because the software we need to run our business runs only on Windows. I use Unix whenever possible and whenever reliability is required. - Curtis P.S. The lack of a real C++ client library that supports the most common development environment out there is another problem that seriously impedes Windows client developers. I like libpqxx, Jeroen did a find job. However, one needs to jump through hoops to get it to run on Visual C++ 6.0 at the moment. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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, 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 database. Probably about 4 or so per day like this at present. A lot of the people sending these emails appear to have windows based products that need a database, and have heard of PostgreSQL being a database that they don't need to pay license fee's for. They've kind of missed the point of Open Source from the purist point of view, but it's still working for them. ;-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift -- My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there. - Indira Gandhi ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
*sigh* Often there isn't a choice of OS. If I am selling to a large enterprise whose corporate standards say they will only run Windows in their data center, my chances of getting them to make an exception are none. But my chances of getting them to install Pg just for my application are far greater. Would I prefer *nix? You betcha. Would I break a deal over it? No. Would I prefer to be able to recommend Pg over, say, Oracle, or MS-SQL? Absolutely. I'm not alone. I don't care how it's built. I have a lot of sympathy for the folks saying make the build process universal, rather than having a special one for Windows. Requiring cygwin shouldn't be a big deal. You aren't going to get a sudden flood of *nix-ignorant windows developers rushing in, no matter what you do. I've been mildly surprised and disappointed by the venom I detect in this thread. I want to be able to recommend a single Db to my customers no matter what OS they run. MySQL just doesn't do it, SAPdB is a nightmare, Pg is my last hope other than a proprietary system. If you are an OpenSource zealot, think of this as an opportunity to get some into places where it is often anaethema. 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: 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 development of client products better? That is what I am really suggesting. 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. I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. All we can do is simply to make it clear that Windows is not recommended for production server use and outline all the reasons why Windows sucks for that purpose. Beyond that, if people want to shoot themselves in the head, they will do so and I don't see much point in trying to stop them. The MySQL guys made the right choice here: they don't want to buy into making Windows a grade-A platform, either. flame off flame retardent on How does providing a native Windows executable that doesn't require Cygwin accomplish your objective. It seems to me that you are going to have the problem if you release a native version irrespective of the issue at hand (Visual C++ project support). I don't see how making it easier to build adds to this problem. I also don't see how making it harder for Windows client developer to adopt PostgreSQL helps anyone. flame retardent off I hate Microsoft and I don't like Windows, but I am forced to use it because the software we need to run our business runs only on Windows. I use Unix whenever possible and whenever reliability is required. - Curtis P.S. The lack of a real C++ client library that supports the most common development environment out there is another problem that seriously impedes Windows client developers. I like libpqxx, Jeroen did a find job. However, one needs to jump through hoops to get it to run on Visual C++ 6.0 at the moment. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 for some months. 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 favorite Unix? If you're looking for a tool to test with, there was an announcement here not too long ago for one. But it goes beyond just running a test suite against it. Many of the available tools are designed to test what works and how well it works. Testing goes beyond that. You want to know what doesn't work, does the database return to a normal state if the unthinkable happens (eg. Tom's suggestion of yanking the plug), how about loss of network communications or sudden intermittant communication? Or the function that may not be checking its input that well - when it fails is everything ok or did that transaction someone else was in the middle of get blown away? A gal that used to do MSDOS testing for MS (Jen something, don't recall her last name) would pull a floppy out in the middle of read or write and found a certain sequence would either hose the floppy, get the system to reboot (don't recall the exact details, it's been YEARS). Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 favorite Unix? If you're looking for a tool to test with, there was an announcement here not too long ago for one. But it goes beyond just running a test suite against it. Many of the available tools are designed to test what works and how well it works. Testing goes beyond that. You want to know what doesn't work, does the database return to a normal state if the unthinkable happens (eg. Tom's suggestion of yanking the plug), how about loss of network communications or sudden intermittant communication? Or the function that may not be checking its input that well - when it fails is everything ok or did that transaction someone else was in the middle of get blown away? A gal that used to do MSDOS testing for MS (Jen something, don't recall her last name) would pull a floppy out in the middle of read or write and found a certain sequence would either hose the floppy, get the system to reboot (don't recall the exact details, it's been YEARS). I'm not disagreeing with you on testing. I've seen the announcments. Justin Clift just posted them again. But, as far as I've seen there are no real scientific tests that anyone here has posted. I've seen the occasional post with db_bench. You asked To what standards? I've not seen any standards that are meaningful. Maybe I'm just not looking. Any benchmarks/tests that someone posts are going to be subjective anyway. No one seems to be using the same tool. The osdb is step in the right direction, but I've not really seen anyone using it. The regressions are the only thing that I can see and run. It would be nice if there were a few people that had test setups that could post benchmarks/tests, so that we could see how things look for each release. (i.e.: on the 5GB test, it did this; when I cut the power and turned it back onn it did this and this.) When I download, install, and use postgresql, I take it on faith that it will perform as the developers say that it does. Maybe this is a bad thing, but I don't think soMy use of it is very meager at the best so I don't have a lot to worry about. If I had loads of data and mission critical apps I would probably test a lot, but I don't. All I'm saying is to cut them some slack and give them some ideas to test until there is a really good testing/benchmarking tool that everyone can use that won't be as subjective. I personally want this to succeed. After having to use MySQL for a class project, I don't really want to use it again. I had to use because it was the only cross platform tool. Not everyone in the class was running linux or xBSD, so I had to go with MySQL. From what I've seen, It looks like I'll have to anyhow because that's what many job ads are looking for. I believe Oracle used the excuse that PostgreSQL was unproven, when they complained about its use for the .org registry. What we may think about Windows being fragile and being a piece of crap doesn't really matter. People are using it and it's at least doing they want. I've probably not said this before, but I appreciate all the hard work that everyone puts into this project. James Hubbard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 I see being made here is this: I believe that the port, as submitted, can be used as an industrial-strength solution. I see no evidence to support this claim. If you have this evidence, feel free to share it with the rest of us. I hammered the betas on a couple of test boxes running Windows XP and .NET Server of various (pre)releases and found it to be rock solid, performing comparably to my Linux based systems. The Cygwin version fell over quite quickly under the same tests. 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. hammering the betas is a far cry from an industrial-strength solution. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 database. Probably about 4 or so per day like this at present. A lot of the people sending these emails appear to have windows based products that need a database, and have heard of PostgreSQL being a database that they don't need to pay license fee's for. They've kind of missed the point of Open Source from the purist point of view, but it's still working for them. ;-) If they are: a) not clueful enough to actually look at the license, and b) looking at it from the purely selfish perspective of not having to pay license fees, then are they /truly/ people where it is useful to put effort into being helpful? Furthermore, if their lawyers are incapable of reading the license and explaining to them You don't have to pay, I'd suggest the thought that maybe they have bigger problems than you can possibly solve for them. The great security quote of recent days is thus: If you spend more on coffee than on IT security, then you will be hacked. -- Richard Clarke The analagous thing might be: If you spend more on coffee than you do on getting proper legal advice about software licenses, then it's just possible that you might do something DOWNRIGHT STUPID and get yourself in a whole barrel of legal hot water. If these people are incapable of reading software licenses, and haven't any competent legal counsel to to do it for them, you've got to wonder if they are competent to sell licenses to their own software. I seriously doubt that they are. Furthermore, I'm not at all sure that it is wise for you to even /try/ to give them any guidance in this, beyond giving them a URL to the license, and saying Have your lawyer read this. If you start giving them interpretations of the license, that smacks of giving legal advice, and bar associations tend to frown on that. -- If this was helpful, http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne rate me http://cbbrowne.com/info/ Interfaces keep things tidy, but don't accelerate growth: functions do. -- Alan Perlis ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [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... Still, industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000 and DB2 installations I have here. Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred clients loose on it. I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Katie Ward wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vince Vielhaber Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:45 AM 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 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 more reliable than the SQL 2000 and DB2 installations I have here. Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred clients loose on it. I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that. Vince. We did that as part of our internal testing, using the ATM database and a dual-processor machine. We tried both with clients connecting and disconnection quickly, and with large numbers of clients that stayed connected for a while, all extremely active. Native Win32 performed comparably with running the same test on comparable machines on LINUX. Nothing crashed. The code's been available for what a week or two? Do you actually think that can be considered conclusive by any standard? Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 Postgres port ;-). 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 sync semantics. 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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 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 more reliable than the SQL 2000 and DB2 installations I have here. Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred clients loose on it. I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that. That's what I was doing, loading it up with hundreds of connections from other boxes, using osdb and pgbench. I'm not saying it's bug free, or that Win2K won't crash under it, but it performed well for me - better than 2 of the leading commercial databases. I agree with Katie, dismissing a largely untested product because it runs on Windows is not a good thing. Yes, Windows can BSOD, but when a system is built on good hardware (for which good quality drivers are available), and configured well it can be as reliable, if not more so than some versions of Linux that have been released. 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... Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 you actually think that can be considered conclusive by any standard? Public beta testing (but closed source) has been going on for some months. Regards, Dave. ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 postmaster... and make sure it recovers gracefully when testing for an industrial- strength solution. Ron ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 be more likely to use it for Windows projects than MySQL which requires the CygWin tools (this means really a Unix product to Windows developers). 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 instability of the platform, not to mention the likelihood that it ignores Unix semantics for fsync() and suchlike critical primitives. Unless this concern is the result of experience (with, say, some versions of Linux or whatnot), then I'd be more inclined to take a try it and see attitude. I do think it's quite appropriate to make the world aware that PostgreSQL under Windows is not likely to be as dependable as PostgreSQL under other Unix platforms, if only because the underlying platform isn't as stable. The fsync() issue and others like it can hopefully be settled through testing. Frankly, I will be surprised if it doesn't work (but not *too* surprised :-). I have no objection to there being a Windows port that people can use to do SQL-client development on their laptops. But let us please not confuse this with an industrial-strength solution; nor give any level of support that might lead others to make such confusion. I don't believe the level of support this group provides has anything to do with whether or not others will regard PostgreSQL on Windows to be an industrial strength solution. Only their experience will determine that. Because PostgreSQL doesn't have a huge marketing arm, its reputation is built upon word of mouth, which is something that only comes from experience. You're assuming that if PostgreSQL is made available under Windows such that it can be run as a service, people who deploy it will immediately assume that it's an industrial strength solution. I think that assumption is faulty, because in reality people out there in the real world are reluctant to deploy PostgreSQL under *Unix* as an industrial strength solution despite its high reliability. Otherwise PostgreSQL would be a LOT more popular than it is. It takes time and experience for people to be convinced that something is industrial-strength, and the Windows port of PostgreSQL is no exception. Perhaps your real concern here is that a port of PostgreSQL to Windows might negatively impact the overall reputation of PostgreSQL due to the fragility of Windows. But I don't think that's really much of a concern: I don't believe the overall reputation of Oracle suffered due to its Windows port, for instance. I think most people who really care about such things are aware that Windows as a platform isn't as reliable as Unix and take that into account when judging the reliability of a deployed solution. For judging the reliability PostgreSQL under Windows, what would matter would be how it stacks up against other database engines running under Windows. In other words, take Windows out of the comparison equation. If PostgreSQL under Windows is at least as fast, solid, etc., as MS-SQL, DB/2, or Oracle under Windows, then people will rightly think of PostgreSQL as an industrial-strength solution and the reputation of PostgreSQL will be secure despite the failings of the platform relative to Unix. Bottom line: put tons of disclaimers about the likely reliability of the Windows port in the documentation if you'd like, but don't let these concerns prevent any action with respect to doing a proper Windows port. -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 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 Postgres port ;-). 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 sync semantics. OK, I can maybe do some testing on that next week (I'm off for a few days from today). Is there anything in particular I should look out for, or that you would want tested? Katie, can I get the latest build from anywhere? Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 than a weeks worth of unscientific testing to prove your point and move from assumptions to facts. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 sync semantics. OK, I can maybe do some testing on that next week (I'm off for a few days from today). Is there anything in particular I should look out for, or that you would want tested? Make sure your test load includes lots of updating queries, and look for database corruption --- bad data, duplicated rows, lost rows, that sort of thing. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 you're telling us about being so successful for some months? Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 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 than a weeks worth of unscientific testing to prove your point and move from assumptions to facts. No problem with that. Likewise however, it'd be nice if people weren't against the windows port until testing had proved it didn't work properly. Would we have the same general reactions to a revived VMS port or one for OS/2 (not counting Tom's which is an valid concern over a specific issue)? I suspect not... Regards, Dave. ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
-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 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 you're telling us about being so successful for some months? No, I've spent a few days here and there on it, and left things running for the odd couple of days. I'm certainly not the only tester though. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still, industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000 and DB2 installations I have here. Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred clients loose on it. I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that. Vince. We did that as part of our internal testing, using the ATM database and a dual-processor machine. We tried both with clients connecting and disconnection quickly, and with large numbers of clients that stayed connected for a while, all extremely active. Native Win32 performed comparably with running the same test on comparable machines on LINUX. Nothing crashed. The code's been available for what a week or two? Do you actually think that can be considered conclusive by any standard? Vince. I am the lead developer on the native windows port. I have been using and testing it for 6 months. However, what testing is ever conclusive?. It is just evidence that more testing by more people should be done. Testing to what standards? IMO the lead developer performing these tests is even less than scientific. There are things you will always know that someone else testing it won't know and they will be more likely to try something that you wouldn't that may show less than stellar results. You've tried what's supposed to work, but how much effort have you put in that's not supposed to work? Are you that sure that if you were to feed an oddball query that will simply close the backend on a unix platform won't send your OS off into the weeds? Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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, 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 than a weeks worth of unscientific testing to prove your point and move from assumptions to facts. No problem with that. Likewise however, it'd be nice if people weren't against the windows port until testing had proved it didn't work properly. Would we have the same general reactions to a revived VMS port or one for OS/2 (not counting Tom's which is an valid concern over a specific issue)? I suspect not... VMS and OS/2 have proven track records of being rugged. Windows has always had a reputation of being fragile. And yes, I have extensive experience with all three. Vince. -- Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/ http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio. ---(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
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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. Katie -Original Message- From: Dave Page [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 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. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 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 favorite Unix? James Hubbard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 at: http://techdocs.postgresql.org/guides/InstallingOnWindows ;-) Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift Katie -- My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there. - Indira Gandhi ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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, you *want* to use the latest CVS version, as that can generate it's own datasets of any size. The older, released versions couldn't and you had to download databases of limited size. Database Opensource Test Suite: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/dotshowto.php This works with DB2, Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, and looks to have been developed by IBM. Haven't yet used this, but did notice that the configuration instructions make no reference to upping the memory buffers. i.e. all of the tests they've done were probably with the defaults (yuck!) Emailed this group yesterday asking if they're open to suggestions for improvement, and they said they definitely are. If anyone has specific they'd like to let them know, they do seem open to it. A commercial solution that people often mention is Benchmark Factory: http://www.benchmarkfactory.com Haven't personally used it, although it's apparently the software that Great Bridge used for all of their testing. Hope this helps. Regards and best wishes, Justin Clift James Hubbard -- My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; there was less competition there. - Indira Gandhi ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
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 rather than relying on the installation and use of the whole Cygwin environment for the build process. Al. - Original Message - From: Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Curtis Faith [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:57 AM Subject: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System Are there no already-written converters from Makefile to VC project files? -- - Curtis Faith wrote: I (Curtis Faith) previously wrote: The Visual C++ Workspaces and Projects files are actually text files that have a defined format. I don't think the format is published but it looks pretty easy to figure out. Hannu Krosing replied: will probably change between releases Even if the format changes, the environment always has a converter that updates the project and workspace files to the new format. In other words, Visual C++ 6.0 reads 5.0 projects, 7.0 reads 6.0, etc. The format is mostly a bunch of options specifications (which wouldn't get touched) followed by a set of named groups of source files. Even if the overall format changes, it will be much more likely to change in the specifications rather than the way lists of source file formats are specified. A conversion tool, call it BuildWindowsProjectFile, would only need to: 1) Read in the template file (containing all the options specifications and Visual C++ speficic stuff, debug and release target options, libraries to link in, etc.) This part might change with new versions of the IDE and would be manually created by someone with Visual C++ experience. 2) Read in the postgreSQL group/directory map, or alternately just mirror the groups with the directories. 3) Output the files from the PostgreSQL directories in the appropriate grouping according to the project format into the appropriate space in the template. An excerpt of the format follows: # Begin Group Access # Begin Group Common # PROP Default_Filter cpp;c;cxx # Begin Source File SOURCE=.\access\common\heaptuple.c # End Source File # Begin Source File SOURCE=.access\common\indextuple.c # End Source File ... other files in access\common go here # End Group # Begin Group Index # PROP Default_Filter cpp;c;cxx # Begin Source File SOURCE=.\access\index\genam.c # End Source File # Begin Source File SOURCE=.access\index\indexam.c # End Source File ... other files in access\index go here # End Group # End Group As you can see, this is a really simple format, and the direct folder/group mapping to PostgreSQL directory is pretty natural and probably the way to go. Using the approach I outline, it should be possible to have the Unix make system automatically run the BuildWindowsProjectFile tool whenever any makefile changes so the Windows projects would stay up to date without additional work for Unix developers. Hannu Krosing also wrote: (also I dont think you can easily compile C source on a C# compiler) ;/ I don't think it makes much sense target a compiler that won't compile the source, therefore, if what you say is true, we shouldn't bother with targeting C#. - Curtis ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org -- Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup.| Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
