Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
(btw, clinically insane without patching it.. And obviously you didn't patch yours? :-P) Yeah, well it's behind all manner of firewalls, doing nothing but buildfarm runs of which I ran the first before WSUS had installed all the pending updates :-p Excuses, excuses... ;) //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
Hi, I just finished setting up a new buildfarm member (Bandicoot) running Windows 2000 Pro. Aside from the fact that it now fails with the same cyptic pg_regress error as seen on Snake, it also became apparent that CVS HEAD won't run properly on an unpatched Windows 2000 (initdb - and probably pg_ctl - fails when trying to dynamically load advapi32.dll which is used to shed excess privileges). This was solved by the installation of service pack 4. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to catch the error - it seems to kill the app and throw a messagebox with a cryptic message. Given that you have to be clinically insane to run Win2K without patching it to the hilt I'm not overly concerned by this (and will add appropriate checks to pgInstaller), but it's probably worth mentioning that our minimum supported platform is Windows 2000 Pro with Service Pack 4 from 8.2. Late into the game, yes, I definitely think this is a reasonable requirement. (FWIW, that's the same requirements as MS put on SQL Server) But yes, this should probably go in the release notes. (btw, clinically insane without patching it.. And obviously you didn't patch yours? :-P) //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
Magnus Hagander wrote: Hi, I just finished setting up a new buildfarm member (Bandicoot) running Windows 2000 Pro. Aside from the fact that it now fails with the same cyptic pg_regress error as seen on Snake, it also became apparent that CVS HEAD won't run properly on an unpatched Windows 2000 (initdb - and probably pg_ctl - fails when trying to dynamically load advapi32.dll which is used to shed excess privileges). This was solved by the installation of service pack 4. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to catch the error - it seems to kill the app and throw a messagebox with a cryptic message. Given that you have to be clinically insane to run Win2K without patching it to the hilt I'm not overly concerned by this (and will add appropriate checks to pgInstaller), but it's probably worth mentioning that our minimum supported platform is Windows 2000 Pro with Service Pack 4 from 8.2. Late into the game, yes, I definitely think this is a reasonable requirement. (FWIW, that's the same requirements as MS put on SQL Server) But yes, this should probably go in the release notes. I have updated the 8.0 release notes to say Windows 2000SP4 supported. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: 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: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
Bruce Momjian wrote: I have updated the 8.0 release notes to say Windows 2000SP4 supported. Not to nitpick, but I think you should change supported to *required*. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Bruce Momjian wrote: I have updated the 8.0 release notes to say Windows 2000SP4 supported. Not to nitpick, but I think you should change supported to *required*. I am worried that saying required means it only works for that version, while it might work for SP5 if that is ever released. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
I am worried that saying required means it only works for that version, while it might work for SP5 if that is ever released. How about: Windows 2000 SP4 and above required. I know it seems trivial, but the amount of people that run windows I really don't want to spend a ton of time with the question: I see that Sp4 is supported, what about SP3? :) It is bad enough we answer the question: So how does PostgreSQL compare with MySQL 5000 times every time we go to a show ;) Joshua D. Drake ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
I am worried that saying required means it only works for that version, while it might work for SP5 if that is ever released. How about: Windows 2000 SP4 and above required. Yeah, that's better wording. Or more correct I think Windows 2000 SP4 or above. FWIW, MS has officially said at some point that they will not make SP5 for Windows 2000, but they've changed their minds before... I know it seems trivial, but the amount of people that run windows I really don't want to spend a ton of time with the question: I see that Sp4 is supported, what about SP3? :) Well, SP3 isn't supported ;-) //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
-Original Message- From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 8/18/2006 12:46 PM To: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support (btw, clinically insane without patching it.. And obviously you didn't patch yours? :-P) Yeah, well it's behind all manner of firewalls, doing nothing but buildfarm runs of which I ran the first before WSUS had installed all the pending updates :-p /D ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
Magnus Hagander wrote: Yeah, that's better wording. Or more correct I think Windows 2000 SP4 or above. FWIW, MS has officially said at some point that they will not make SP5 for Windows 2000, but they've changed their minds before... Unless there actually is a version of that operating system that is not labelled Windows 2000 SP4 that is supported, this expression is meaningless. Note that the list of supported platforms in the documentation does not make any open interval claims (or any interval claims for that matter). If you know that anything before Windows 2000 SP4 is unsupported, that would be useful information, but not the other way around. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
Peter Eisentraut wrote: Magnus Hagander wrote: Yeah, that's better wording. Or more correct I think Windows 2000 SP4 or above. FWIW, MS has officially said at some point that they will not make SP5 for Windows 2000, but they've changed their minds before... Unless there actually is a version of that operating system that is not labelled Windows 2000 SP4 that is supported, this expression is meaningless. Note that the list of supported platforms in the documentation does not make any open interval claims (or any interval claims for that matter). If you know that anything before Windows 2000 SP4 is unsupported, that would be useful information, but not the other way around. I see who mentions of Win2000, one in the FAQ, another in the release notes. If people want the text changed, I want an example showing exactly what the new wording should be because you can't just add and later into the text we have now. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
[HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support
Hi, I just finished setting up a new buildfarm member (Bandicoot) running Windows 2000 Pro. Aside from the fact that it now fails with the same cyptic pg_regress error as seen on Snake, it also became apparent that CVS HEAD won't run properly on an unpatched Windows 2000 (initdb - and probably pg_ctl - fails when trying to dynamically load advapi32.dll which is used to shed excess privileges). This was solved by the installation of service pack 4. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to catch the error - it seems to kill the app and throw a messagebox with a cryptic message. Given that you have to be clinically insane to run Win2K without patching it to the hilt I'm not overly concerned by this (and will add appropriate checks to pgInstaller), but it's probably worth mentioning that our minimum supported platform is Windows 2000 Pro with Service Pack 4 from 8.2. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: 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
