Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-03 Thread Igor Georgiev
- 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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-03 Thread Jan Wieck
Hannu Krosing wrote: On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 20:29, Tom Lane wrote: Claiming that it doesn't require an increased level of testing is somewhere between ridiculous and irresponsible. We should have at least _some_ platforms (besides Win32) that we could clain to have run thorough test on.

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
: 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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-01 Thread Greg Copeland
On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 00:46, Dann Corbit wrote: MySQL for Win32 has no connection whatsoever with anything from Cygwin or Mingw Excellent. Thanks for humoring me. ;) -- Greg Copeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copeland Computer Consulting ---(end of

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-01 Thread Curt Sampson
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-02-01 Thread Justin Clift
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Justin Clift
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread cbbrowne
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread cbbrowne
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Justin Clift
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Greg Copeland
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Curtis Faith
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Andrew Dunstan
- 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

[Fwd: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System]

2003-01-31 Thread mlw
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Christopher Browne
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Dann Corbit
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Dann Corbit
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread mlw
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread mlw
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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/

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Greg Copeland
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Greg Copeland
On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 16:07, Christopher Browne wrote: I'm making the generous assumption that since /they/ claim that there is some distinction, that there perhaps is one. I've used the cygwin environment enough to know that there isn't any. If it's linked against the cygwin dll, the

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Greg Copeland
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Dann Corbit
-Original Message- From: Greg Copeland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 10:18 PM To: Dann Corbit Cc: Christopher Browne; Justin Clift; Jeff Davis; PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List Subject: RE: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System On Fri, 2003-01

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Dann Corbit
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Hannu Krosing
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread cbbrowne
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Hannu Krosing
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Jeff Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 31 January 2003 06:27 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System What about it? Someone claimed in this thread that MySQL's Windows port requires Cygwin. Is that true

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Ian Barwick
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread mlw
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Kevin Brown
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Andrew Dunstan
From: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Kevin Brown
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.

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Kurt Roeckx
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,

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Kevin Brown
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Lamar Owen
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?

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Greg Copeland
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Dann Corbit
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Greg Copeland
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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:

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Hannu Krosing
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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.

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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'

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Lamar Owen
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Jan Wieck
Vince Vielhaber wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote: hammering the betas is a far cry from an industrial-strength solution. Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still,

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Ron Mayer
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote: On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Ron Mayer wrote: Cool irony in the automated .sig on the mailinglist software... [...] Sounds like you're basically saying is _do_ 'kill -9' the postmaster... and make sure it recovers gracefully... ... It's not

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-30 Thread Jan Wieck
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Katie Ward
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Curtis Faith
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Justin Clift
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,

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread James Hubbard
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Dave Page
-Original Message- From: Vince Vielhaber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 29 January 2003 16:36 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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread cbbrowne
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
: [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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Ron Mayer
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Kevin Brown
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

  1   2   >