Let me look at what makes sense there, I am open to it.
On 7/26/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> writes:
> > But this is pushing forward PostgreSQL development you're doing here. If
> > you've got a problem such that something works differently based on the
> > order in which you built the packages, which is going to be unique to
> > every Linux distribution already, that is itself noteworthy and deserves
> > engineering out. You might think of this high-end machine being a little
> > different as usefully adding diversity robustness in a similar way to how
> > the buildfarm helps improve the core right now.
>
> Actually, the thing that's concerning me is *exactly* lack of diversity.
> If we have just one of these things then there's a significant risk of
> unconsciously tuning PG towards that specific platform. I'd rather we
> take that risk with a well-standardized, widely used platform than with
> something no one else can reproduce.
>
> Really there's a pretty good argument for having several different OS'es
> available on the box --- I wonder whether Gavin is up to managing some
> sort of VM or multiboot setup.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>
