Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> And poor Katie just got _slammed_ -- and she's the lead developer.

We could definitely do without the vitriol. I'd like to apologize if
anyone took anything I said as a personal attack. It wasn't meant that
way.

> The developers don't like Win32. That's the problem.

Sure, we're on record as not liking Windows. But:

> But as to 'industrial strength testing' -- do ANY of our releases get this
> sort of testing on ANY platform? No, typically it's 'regression passed' 'Ok,
> it's supported on that platform.'

Most variants of Unix are known to be pretty stable. Most variants of
Unix are known to follow the Unix standard semantics for sync() and
fsync(). I think we are entirely justified in doubting whether Windows
is a suitable platform for PG, and in wanting to run tests to find out.
Yes, we are holding Windows to a higher standard than we would for a
Unix variant.

Partly this is a matter of wanting to protect Postgres' reputation.
Just on sheer numbers, if there is a native Windows port then there are
likely to be huge numbers of people using Postgres on Windows. If
that's not going to be a reliable combination, we need to know it and
tell them so up-front. Otherwise, people will be blaming Postgres, not
Windows, when they lose data. It's an entirely different situation from
whether Postgres-on-Joe-Blow's-Unix-Variant loses data, first because of
visibility, and second because of the different user base. Am I being
paranoid to suspect that the average Postgres-on-Windows user will be
less clueful than the average Postgres-on-Unix user? I don't think so.

Between the population factors and Windows' hard-earned reputation for
unreliability, we would be irresponsible not to be asking tough
questions here. If the Windows partisans don't think Windows should be
held to a higher standard than the platforms we already deal with,
why not? Are they afraid that their platform won't pass the scrutiny?

regards, tom lane