OK, current text suggestion is:
Although tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
have the benefit of years of use in production environments that
PostgreSQL has on Unix platforms and therefore should be treated with
the same level of caution as you would a new product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >> Rob Butler <crodster2k@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> That makes it sound as if you didn't do the same level
> >>> of testing on *this* release, like it didn't go
> >>> through all the tests or something.
> >>
> >>
> >>> How about "it does not have the extensive testing
> >>> history that other supported platforms in this release
> >>> have."
> >>
> >>
> >> Not bad, but it doesn't make the point that there's a lot of new
> >> platform-specific code for Windows in there. You want to point
> >> out not only that there's no history, but that there's new code to be
> >> suspicious of.
> >
> >
> > "Altho tested throughout our release cycle, the Windows port does not
> > have the benefit of the years of testing that has gone into the Unix
> > platforms, and, as such, should be treated with the same level of
> > caution as you would a new product"
> >
> >
> Not bad. I think I'd say " ... does not have the benefit of years of use
> in production environments that PostgreSQL has on Unix platforms ..." -
> I agree with Merlin that we shouldn't imply it hasn't been extensively
> tested.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
