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
