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
   + 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

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.
 
 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 ?

The testing has to be done before we make anything available as an
official release. As of now, the status of this project is at the
beginning of incorporating a 7.2.1 based patch into CVS HEAD.

Asking for exzessive tests at this stage of development and (ab)using
the absence of 100% proof of rock solid reliability as an excuse to
reject the entire aproach would be ridiculous.


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

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  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

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 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

2003-02-01 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 
 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

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
 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

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 
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

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 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

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 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

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 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]

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], 
[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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org



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 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

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 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

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:
   

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

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/
   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

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 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

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 application runs in an
emulated unix environment.  To say it's emulated is really too strong
but to say it adds *tons* of overhead certainly won't make you a lair. 
;)


-- 
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

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 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

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, 2003-01-31 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)?


The latest version of Depends.exe has a text unload feature.
[cough] sorry 'bout the bitmap to Greg C.

*| System Information
|*

Dependency Walker:   2.1.3623 (32-bit)
Operating System:Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional (32-bit)
OS Version:  5.00.2195 Service Pack 3
Processor:   x86 Family 6 Model 4 Stepping 2, AuthenticAMD,
~959MHz
Number of Processors:1
Computer Name:   DANNFAST
User Name:   dcorbit
Local Date:  Friday, January 31, 2003
Local Time:  10:38:13 PM Pacific Standard Time (GMT-08:00)
OS Language: 0x0409: English (United States)
Memory Load: 59%
Physical Memory Total:   536,313,856 (512 MB)
Physical Memory Used:319,377,408
Physical Memory Free:216,936,448
Page File Memory Total:  1,576,714,240
Page File Memory Used:   462,430,208
Page File Memory Free:   1,114,284,032
Virtual Memory Total:2,147,352,576
Virtual Memory Used: 40,226,816
Virtual Memory Free: 2,107,125,760
Page Size:   0x1000 (4,096)
Allocation Granularity:  0x0001 (65,536)
Min. App. Address:   0x0001 (65,536)
Max. App. Address:   0x7FFE (2,147,418,111)

| Search Order
|
*
*
* Legend: F  File E  Error (path not valid)
*
*
*



The system's KnownDLLs list
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\ADVAPI32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\COMCTL32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\COMDLG32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\CRYPT32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\GDI32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\IMAGEHLP.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\KERNEL32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\LZ32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\MPR.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\MSASN1.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\MSVCRT.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\NTDLL.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\OLE32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\OLEAUT32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\OLECLI32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\OLECNV32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\OLESVR32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\OLETHK32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\RPCRT4.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\SHELL32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\SHLWAPI.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\URL.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\URLMON.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\USER32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\VERSION.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\WININET.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\WLDAP32.DLL
   [F ] c:\winnt\system32\WOW32.DLL
The application directory
   [  ] E:\mysql-3.23.55\client_release\
The 32-bit system directory
   [  ] C:\WINNT\System32\
The 16-bit system directory (Windows NT/2000/XP only)
   [  ] C:\WINNT\system\
The system's root OS directory
   [  ] C:\WINNT\
The application's registered App Paths directories
The system's PATH environment variable directories
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Intel\ISelect\Bin\
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Intel\ICID\
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Intel\EDB\
   [ E] C:\Program Files\Intel\ISelect\Bin6\
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Intel\Compiler60\IA32\Bin\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\ICID\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\EDB\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\ISelect\Bin6\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\Compiler60\IA32\Bin\
   [  ] C:\PW32\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\VTune\CGGlbCache\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\VTune\Analyzer\Bin\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\VTune\Shared\Bin\
   [  ] C:\WINNT\system32\
   [  ] C:\WINNT\
   [  ] C:\WINNT\System32\Wbem\
   [  ] c:\utils\
   [  ] C:\MSSQL7\BINN\
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDK\Bin\.\
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDK\Bin\WinNT\.\
   [  ] C:\PROGRA~1\ULTRAE~1\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\compiler45\bin\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\vtune45\
   [ E] C:\lang\Intel\edb32\
   [ E] C:\lang\vc98\Tools\WinNT\
   [ E] C:\lang\vc98\MSDev98\Bin\
   [ E] C:\lang\vc98\Tools\
   [  ] C:\lang\VC98\bin\
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDK\Bin\.\
   [  ] C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDK\Bin\WinNT\.\
   [ E] c:\oracle\lra81\bin\
   [  ] c:\lang\common\vss\win32\
   [ E] c

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, 2003-01-31 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

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) 
 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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).

Last time I installed it ~6 months ago for some testing, it did install
cygwin1.dll which is basically Cygwin.

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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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/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

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 $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

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 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

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 run tests to find out.
 Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a
 Unix variant.

The patches that were released implement fsync() by a call to _commit(),
which is what I expected to see after a brief tour of the M$ support site.
Is there any reason to think this won't have the desired effect? IANAWD, but
my reading suggests these should be pretty much equivalent.

andrew


---(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

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.
 
 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

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, 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

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
  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

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 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

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?

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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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:
  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

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 
  
  
  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

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 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

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 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

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
  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

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 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

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: 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?

 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.  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.

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

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 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

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.

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

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' 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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,
  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.

You have what? I have never seen a Win2K *production* system throwing
a bluescreen that was not caused by a hardware fault. And if the systems
you are referring to have any of this 

- soundcard
- state OFF the art graphics adapter
- joystuck or gamepet
- ACPI HAL

you aren't talking about production systems and just disqualified the
probably highly overpaid IDIOT who installed them. Highly overpaid
because if he got more than the negative of the project cost, it was too
much.

What I see reading this thread is the typical release early problem.
People have tried Windows 3.1, they know Windows is crap ... from
experience! People have had problems with Windows NT 3.51 and know
Windows NT is crap ... from experience! I don't exclude myself from that
group, I had tried MS-DOS 3.21 and I knew Microsoft OS's are crap ...
from experience! It took 15 years and some serious multi-million
projects before I reevaluated my opinion. 

Windows 2000 by itself is an industrial strength, stable operating
system. Don't let it get in touch with hard- and software your server
doesn't need, give it the hardware your business deserves, and you'll
have a robust and reliable system you can trust.


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

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] 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

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
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

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 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

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 far off, but it's quite amusing none the less.

Sorry it looks like I should have added 50% :-), 50% :-|.  I was
just amused by the irony of having the admonition against the 
standard linux-low-memory condition.  [ 90% :-) ]



More constructively, I think it'd be best for everyone if

   a) postgresql does have a native windows port, and

   b) it's positioned as a well-tested beta rather than production
  ready, with documentation saying what part people have
  confidence in (the engine?  operation in non-failure modes),
  and what part is still in beta (OS failure modes).

IMHO this would have the advantages of

   Even if it works better than many expect, it shows...

  ... that postgresql has a high standard even for beta releases,
  where this community thinks about even broader system issues.

  ... corporations using it what aspects they need to focus on in
  internal testing before using it in production environments.

  ... that we're interested in reaching a broader community.

  ... that postgresql is quite portable across platforms.

Note that I don't even care about running the windows version.  I just think 
that such a release can be positioned to _strengthen_ PostgreSQL's brand image 
rather than weaken it.


   Ron


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



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
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

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
 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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, 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

2003-01-29 Thread Andrew Dunstan
*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

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 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

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
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

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 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

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:
 
 
 
   -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.

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.

Regards, Dave.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]



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 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

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 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

2003-01-29 Thread Vince Vielhaber
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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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



  1   2   >