Thread: Windows 2000 Support
Hi, I just finished setting up a new buildfarm member (Bandicoot) running Windows 2000 Pro. Aside from the fact that it now fails with the same cyptic pg_regress error as seen on Snake, it also became apparent that CVS HEAD won't run properly on an unpatched Windows 2000 (initdb - and probably pg_ctl - fails when trying to dynamically load advapi32.dll which is used to shed excess privileges). This was solved by the installation of service pack 4. Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to catch the error - it seems to kill the app and throw a messagebox with a cryptic message. Given that you have to be clinically insane to run Win2K without patching it to the hilt I'm not overly concerned by this (and will add appropriate checks to pgInstaller), but it's probably worth mentioning that our minimum supported platform is Windows 2000 Pro with Service Pack 4 from 8.2. Regards, Dave.
> Hi, > > I just finished setting up a new buildfarm member (Bandicoot) > running Windows 2000 Pro. Aside from the fact that it now fails > with the same cyptic pg_regress error as seen on Snake, it also > became apparent that CVS HEAD won't run properly on an unpatched > Windows 2000 (initdb - and probably pg_ctl - fails when trying to > dynamically load advapi32.dll which is used to shed excess > privileges). This was solved by the installation of service pack 4. > Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to catch the error - it seems > to kill the app and throw a messagebox with a cryptic message. > > Given that you have to be clinically insane to run Win2K without > patching it to the hilt I'm not overly concerned by this (and will > add appropriate checks to pgInstaller), but it's probably worth > mentioning that our minimum supported platform is Windows 2000 Pro > with Service Pack 4 from 8.2. Late into the game, yes, I definitely think this is a reasonable requirement. (FWIW, that's the same requirements as MS put on SQL Server) But yes, this should probably go in the release notes. (btw, clinically insane without patching it.. And obviously you didn't patch yours? :-P) //Magnus
Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just finished setting up a new buildfarm member (Bandicoot) > > running Windows 2000 Pro. Aside from the fact that it now fails > > with the same cyptic pg_regress error as seen on Snake, it also > > became apparent that CVS HEAD won't run properly on an unpatched > > Windows 2000 (initdb - and probably pg_ctl - fails when trying to > > dynamically load advapi32.dll which is used to shed excess > > privileges). This was solved by the installation of service pack 4. > > Unfortunately I couldn't find a way to catch the error - it seems > > to kill the app and throw a messagebox with a cryptic message. > > > > Given that you have to be clinically insane to run Win2K without > > patching it to the hilt I'm not overly concerned by this (and will > > add appropriate checks to pgInstaller), but it's probably worth > > mentioning that our minimum supported platform is Windows 2000 Pro > > with Service Pack 4 from 8.2. > > Late into the game, yes, I definitely think this is a reasonable > requirement. (FWIW, that's the same requirements as MS put on SQL > Server) > > But yes, this should probably go in the release notes. I have updated the 8.0 release notes to say Windows 2000SP4 supported. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I have updated the 8.0 release notes to say Windows 2000SP4 supported. > > Not to nitpick, but I think you should change supported to *required*. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I have updated the 8.0 release notes to say Windows 2000SP4 supported. > > > > > Not to nitpick, but I think you should change supported to *required*. I am worried that saying required means it only works for that version, while it might work for SP5 if that is ever released. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> > I am worried that saying required means it only works for that version, > while it might work for SP5 if that is ever released. > How about: Windows 2000 SP4 and above required. I know it seems trivial, but the amount of people that run windows.... I really don't want to spend a ton of time with the question: I see that Sp4 is supported, what about SP3? :) It is bad enough we answer the question: So how does PostgreSQL compare with MySQL 5000 times every time we go to a show ;) Joshua D. Drake
> > I am worried that saying required means it only works for that > > version, while it might work for SP5 if that is ever released. > > > How about: > > Windows 2000 SP4 and above required. Yeah, that's better wording. Or more correct I think "Windows 2000 SP4 or above". FWIW, MS has officially said at some point that they will not make SP5 for Windows 2000, but they've changed their minds before... > I know it seems trivial, but the amount of people that run > windows.... I really don't want to spend a ton of time with > the question: I see that Sp4 is supported, what about SP3? :) Well, SP3 isn't supported ;-) //Magnus
-----Original Message----- From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha@sollentuna.net] Sent: Fri 8/18/2006 12:46 PM To: Dave Page; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: RE: [HACKERS] Windows 2000 Support > (btw, clinically insane without patching it.. And obviously you didn't > patch yours? :-P) Yeah, well it's behind all manner of firewalls, doing nothing but buildfarm runs of which I ran the first before WSUS hadinstalled all the pending updates :-p /D
Magnus Hagander wrote: > Yeah, that's better wording. Or more correct I think "Windows 2000 > SP4 or above". > > FWIW, MS has officially said at some point that they will not make > SP5 for Windows 2000, but they've changed their minds before... Unless there actually is a version of that operating system that is not labelled "Windows 2000 SP4" that is supported, this expression is meaningless. Note that the list of "supported" platforms in the documentation does not make any open interval claims (or any interval claims for that matter). If you know that anything before Windows 2000 SP4 is unsupported, that would be useful information, but not the other way around. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Magnus Hagander wrote: > > Yeah, that's better wording. Or more correct I think "Windows 2000 > > SP4 or above". > > > > FWIW, MS has officially said at some point that they will not make > > SP5 for Windows 2000, but they've changed their minds before... > > Unless there actually is a version of that operating system that is not > labelled "Windows 2000 SP4" that is supported, this expression is > meaningless. > > Note that the list of "supported" platforms in the documentation does > not make any open interval claims (or any interval claims for that > matter). > > If you know that anything before Windows 2000 SP4 is unsupported, that > would be useful information, but not the other way around. I see who mentions of Win2000, one in the FAQ, another in the release notes. If people want the text changed, I want an example showing exactly what the new wording should be because you can't just add "and later" into the text we have now. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> > (btw, clinically insane without patching it.. And obviously > you didn't > > patch yours? :-P) > > Yeah, well it's behind all manner of firewalls, doing nothing > but buildfarm runs of which I ran the first before WSUS had > installed all the pending updates :-p Excuses, excuses... ;) //Magnus