Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Date
Msg-id 19832.1043943130@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System  ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>)
Responses Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
List pgsql-hackers
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System
Next
From: Steve Crawford
Date:
Subject: Re: Linux.conf.au 2003 Report