pgsql-server: Update that 8.0 will support MS Win natively.

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Update that 8.0 will support MS Win natively.

I've noticed that when we mention Win32 native support in 8.0 (both here
and in the release notes), we don't say it is "considered to be beta",
or "less well-tested than PostgreSQL for Unix systems", or some other
caveat. While I haven't used the Win32 port myself, I still think such a
disclaimer would be wise: the Win32 port has received a tiny fraction of
the testing that the Unix port has. So we really *don't* know how
unstable/buggy it may be, and until we have more data, I think
under-promising is a good idea.

(... or has this already been discussed over the summer?)

-Neil

Neil Conway wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Update that 8.0 will support MS Win natively.

I've noticed that when we mention Win32 native support in 8.0 (both here
and in the release notes), we don't say it is "considered to be beta",
or "less well-tested than PostgreSQL for Unix systems", or some other
caveat. While I haven't used the Win32 port myself, I still think such a
disclaimer would be wise: the Win32 port has received a tiny fraction of
the testing that the Unix port has. So we really *don't* know how
unstable/buggy it may be, and until we have more data, I think
under-promising is a good idea.

(... or has this already been discussed over the summer?)

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

Everyone knows it is is a new feature so I assume they will realize
their might be some rough edges.

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

You have *got* to be kidding. It's a new port with major changes
needed, and you're going to assume it is bulletproof? We do not work
that way on this project --- we err on the side of conservatism not
optimism.

In any case, it's not like we haven't been seeing plenty of bug reports
from users of the Windows beta. Many of these may be pilot error, but
I wouldn't care to assume they all are.

regards, tom lane

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

On the contrary, I don't see how we can assume it IS stable without any
evidence (which is effectively what we're doing if we release 8.0.0
without any special note about how stable we expect Win32 to be: we're
treating unix and win32 equally, when they clearly are not from the POV
of testing and maturity).

This is enterprise software -- I think it would be wise for us to be
conservative about what we promise our users.

Everyone knows it is is a new feature so I assume they will realize
their might be some rough edges.

If "everyone knows", why not document it?

-Neil

Neil Conway wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

On the contrary, I don't see how we can assume it IS stable without any
evidence (which is effectively what we're doing if we release 8.0.0
without any special note about how stable we expect Win32 to be: we're
treating unix and win32 equally, when they clearly are not from the POV
of testing and maturity).

This is enterprise software -- I think it would be wise for us to be
conservative about what we promise our users.

What makes it more different from saying PITR, NT, or tablespaces might
have bugs because those are new features too. What is the distinction?

-- 
  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

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Neil Conway wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

On the contrary, I don't see how we can assume it IS stable without any
evidence (which is effectively what we're doing if we release 8.0.0
without any special note about how stable we expect Win32 to be: we're
treating unix and win32 equally, when they clearly are not from the POV
of testing and maturity).

This is enterprise software -- I think it would be wise for us to be
conservative about what we promise our users.

What makes it more different from saying PITR, NT, or tablespaces might
have bugs because those are new features too. What is the distinction?

they are new features, not new ports ...

Win32 is a new platform that we are supporting, and the likelihood of
someone finding a bug somewhere in the tens of thousands of lines of code
that is "windows specific" right now is fairly high ...

adding NT/PITR adds a feature that unless someone *really* screwed up,
doesn't have the potential of finding a bug *anywhere* in our code other
then where they tie into it, so its alot less of an impact overall ...

And that probably isn't worded as well as I'd like ... basically, *none*
of our code is *well tested* on Windows, where is *most* of our code is
well tested under Unix ... the only common "not well tested" code is the
new features we add during the release ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 08:50:44AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

adding NT/PITR adds a feature that unless someone *really* screwed up,
doesn't have the potential of finding a bug *anywhere* in our code other
then where they tie into it, so its alot less of an impact overall ...

At least NT is so invasive that it has to potential to really screw
up ... in fact several ugly bugs have been detected and corrected already
(thanks guys!), not sure how many more are still waiting to be found.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"La principal caracter�stica humana es la tonter�a"
(Augusto Monterroso)

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

My count is three votes in favour of adding a disclaimer (myself, Tom,
Marc -- possibly Alvaro) and only one vote against (Bruce). Does anyone
think we ought to ask for opinions on -hackers? If not, I'll submit a
doc patch adding the disclaimer to the release notes.

Cheers,

Neil

Neil Conway wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

My count is three votes in favour of adding a disclaimer (myself, Tom,
Marc -- possibly Alvaro) and only one vote against (Bruce). Does anyone
think we ought to ask for opinions on -hackers? If not, I'll submit a
doc patch adding the disclaimer to the release notes.

Is the release notes even the right place for it? When you read the
release notes after 8.1 is released, do you want to read that Win32
had possible problems in 8.0? Perhaps we should mention it in the
release announcement instead?

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Is the release notes even the right place for it? When you read the
release notes after 8.1 is released, do you want to read that Win32
had possible problems in 8.0?

Sure you do. The release notes are historical material. There is
plenty of stuff in there that's totally irrelevant now, but we have
not (and I trust will not) gone back and removed entries that are no
longer significant.

Perhaps we should mention it in the
release announcement instead?

Why are you so insistent on sweeping this point under the rug? I'd much
rather underpromise and overdeliver than the reverse. We have plenty of
reason to be suspicious of the native Windows port at this stage ...
if you think it's going to be problem-free, I refer you to
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2004-08/msg00307.php
for the counterexample du jour. You'd be nuts to think that we'll find
every one of these issues before 8.0 release.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Is the release notes even the right place for it? When you read the
release notes after 8.1 is released, do you want to read that Win32
had possible problems in 8.0?

Sure you do. The release notes are historical material. There is
plenty of stuff in there that's totally irrelevant now, but we have
not (and I trust will not) gone back and removed entries that are no
longer significant.

Perhaps we should mention it in the
release announcement instead?

Why are you so insistent on sweeping this point under the rug? I'd much
rather underpromise and overdeliver than the reverse. We have plenty of
reason to be suspicious of the native Windows port at this stage ...
if you think it's going to be problem-free, I refer you to
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2004-08/msg00307.php
for the counterexample du jour. You'd be nuts to think that we'll find
every one of these issues before 8.0 release.

Agreed, but we just found NT problems today too. The only argument I
can accept is that somehow platform bugs are harder to discover than our
other code bugs.

My concern is that I would like to have some actual facts before making
statements. I am not good on going on guesses, I guess. :-)

The open Win32 bugs have been there for quite some time, though the one
you quote is quite new so maybe platforms bugs are harder to find.

This is the same issue I had with removing NT4 as supported. I needed
to hear facts about what didn't work before making a statement because
when I go on guesses, I am usually wrong and have to somehow take it
back, and in this project, it is hard to retract things effectively.

As an example of the NT4 issue, it turns out it works just fine, just
that it doesn't support tablespaces, and the installer doesn't work.
Once I had that info I could adjust the release notes to just not
mention it in the list of platforms.

What text are people suggesting? "This is a new port and might have
bugs that will be fixed in minor releases?" Or, "This port is
experimental and you would be crazy to use it in production"? :-)

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Agreed, but we just found NT problems today too. The only argument I
can accept is that somehow platform bugs are harder to discover than our
other code bugs.

The point isn't that they're harder to discover or not, it's that they
are new. 8.0 as a whole will have plenty of bugs that we will not find
till after release :-( (not happy about that statement, but it's a fact).
But we can be pretty certain that most of the bugs affecting Unix
platforms will be generic cross-platform bugs that also fail on the
Windows port. On *top* of those issues, the Windows port will have its
own problems. It's the merest wishful thinking to suppose that the
Windows port will be as stable as the longer-established ports. I do
not say that it won't or can't get there ... but I do say that it won't
happen on day zero, and we ought to be forthright about admitting that.

My concern is that I would like to have some actual facts before making
statements. I am not good on going on guesses, I guess. :-)

Wake up and smell the flowers, Bruce. There is plenty of evidence for
my position already in the pgsql-bugs archives, including the latest
item that I pointed you to just up-thread. You are being deliberately
clueless.

What text are people suggesting? "This is a new port and might have
bugs that will be fixed in minor releases?" Or, "This port is
experimental and you would be crazy to use it in production"? :-)

I'd go for (b) ;-) ... but then again I think anyone would be crazy to
use Windows for production anytime ;-). But whatever your opinion on
that, it would be irresponsible not to point out that this is a new port
that is certain to have more than its share of problems.

regards, tom lane

Bruce Momjian wrote:

What text are people suggesting?

How do people feel about the attached doc patch?

Cheers,

Neil

I have shortened your paragraph to:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
than other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in production.

and made the change in release.sgml. Do we need more?

Other wording I considered was:

"we expect this port not to be as bug-free as other supported platforms"

but that is close to a double-negative.

In adding this now, I would also like to see a notice in a future
release at the point we think Win32 is as bug-free as Unix (or as
bug-free as the platform allows). (And this might happen in a minor
8.0.X release.)

Again, my concern about this stuff is that you later have to undo what
you said.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neil Conway wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

What text are people suggesting?

How do people feel about the attached doc patch?

Cheers,

Neil

Index: doc/src/sgml/release.sgml
===================================================================
RCS file: /Users/neilc/local/cvs/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/release.sgml,v
retrieving revision 1.288
diff -c -r1.288 release.sgml
*** doc/src/sgml/release.sgml	24 Aug 2004 00:06:50 -0000	1.288
--- doc/src/sgml/release.sgml	26 Aug 2004 05:43:32 -0000
***************
*** 28,47 ****
<listitem>
<para>
This is the first <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>
!         release to natively run on Microsoft Windows as a server. It
!         can run as a Windows service. This release supports NT-based
!         Windows releases like Win2000, XP, Win2003.  Older releases
!         like Windows 95, 98, and ME are not supported because these
!         operating systems do not have the infrastructure to support
!         <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>.  A separate installer
!         project has been created to ease installation on Windows:
<ulink url="http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pginstaller">
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pginstaller</ulink>.
</para>
!        <para>
!         Previous releases required the Unix emulation toolkit Cygwin for
!         Win32 server support. <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>
!         has always supported clients on Win32.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>
--- 28,65 ----
<listitem>
<para>
This is the first <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>
!         release to natively run on Microsoft Windows as a server. This
!         release supports Windows 2000, XP, and 2003. Older releases of
!         Windows are not supported because they lack the infrastructure
!         necessary to support <productname>PostgreSQL</productname>. A
!         separate installer project has been created to allow for easy
!         installation on Windows:
<ulink url="http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pginstaller">
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pginstaller</ulink>.
</para>
! 
!        <warning>
!         <para>
!          This is the first release of <productname>PostgreSQL</> to
!          natively support Win32. As a result, the Windows port of
!          <productname>PostgreSQL</> is less mature and likely less
!          stable than <productname>PostgreSQL</> on Unix. While we have
!          done our best to produce a high-quality release for Windows,
!          users accustomed to the stability and maturity of
!          <productname>PostgreSQL</> on Unix may not be satisfied by
!          the current state of <productname>PostgreSQL</> on
!          Windows. We expect the maturity of the Windows port to
!          significantly increase in the future. We encourage all
!          prospective users of <productname>PostgreSQL</> on Windows to
!          carefully evaluate the database system before putting it into
!          production use.
!         </para>
!        </warning>
! 
!        <para>
!         Previous releases required the Unix emulation toolkit Cygwin
!         for Win32 server support. <productname>PostgreSQL</> has
!         supported clients on Win32 for a long time.
</para>
</listitem>
</varlistentry>

-- 
  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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I have shortened your paragraph to:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
than other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in production.

and made the change in release.sgml. Do we need more?

I don't much like "might have more bugs". Perhaps "might be less robust"
or "might be less stable"?

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I have shortened your paragraph to:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
than other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in production.

and made the change in release.sgml. Do we need more?

I don't much like "might have more bugs". Perhaps "might be less robust"
or "might be less stable"?

"lacks the extended testing"? Or even "we don't have an extended
track-record on this platform".

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:

"lacks the extended testing"?

That's good. We don't need to focus on bugs. The word bug and postgresql
should never occur in the same sentence... hmm...

--
/Dennis Bj�rklund

OK, new wording:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, it has not been tested as
extensively as other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in production.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Bjorklund wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:

"lacks the extended testing"?

That's good. We don't need to focus on bugs. The word bug and postgresql
should never occur in the same sentence... hmm...

--
/Dennis Bj?rklund

-- 
  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

After a long battle with technology, andrew@dunslane.net (Andrew Dunstan), an earthling, wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I have shortened your paragraph to:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, this port might have more bugs
than other supported platforms in this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in production.

and made the change in release.sgml. Do we need more?

I don't much like "might have more bugs". Perhaps "might be less
robust" or "might be less stable"?

How about:

"We cannot be as confident in its stability as we are for other
platforms that have been tested and supported across numerous past
releases."
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html
Q: What does the function NULL do?
A: The function NULL tests whether or not its argument is NIL or not. If
its argument is NIL the value of NULL is NIL.
-- Ken Tracton, Programmer's Guide to Lisp, page 73.

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."

Later
Rob

OK, new wording:

Because Win32 is significantly different
from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, it has not
been tested as
extensively as other supported platforms in
this release. Please
test it thoroughly before using it in
production.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis Bjorklund wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:

"lacks the extended testing"?

That's good. We don't need to focus on bugs. The

word bug and postgresql

should never occur in the same sentence... hmm...

--
/Dennis Bj?rklund

-- 
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

---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

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.

regards, tom lane

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"

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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.

Agreed, but savepoints probably has more code. Do we warn about that
too?

I agree there is a disconnect between the initial clause and the testing
part, and mentioning the code actually does fix that, so new wording is:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, there is much new Win32-specific
code that has not been tested extensively. Please test it
thoroughly before using it in production.

Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.

-- 
  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

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"

Wow, that is good! Current wording is:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix platforms
supported in previous releases, there is much new Win32-specific
code that has not been tested extensively. Please test it
thoroughly before using it in production.

Should I change it to Marc's version?

-- 
  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

Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.

Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I mean this is the
first release of the Win32 code. Anybody who would be willing to put it
in production without extensive testing deserves everything they get.

Then again we are talking about people who willinging use Windows as the
primary platform. Forget I brought it up.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.

Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I mean this is the
first release of the Win32 code. Anybody who would be willing to put it
in production without extensive testing deserves everything they get.

Then again we are talking about people who willinging use Windows as the
primary platform. Forget I brought it up.

I think there is concern that if the Win32 port is buggy that it will
give the project a bad reputation. It will probably be distributed to
many who have never used PostgreSQL before.

-- 
  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

"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"

Wow, that is good! Current wording is:

Because Win32 is significantly different from the Unix

platforms

supported in previous releases, there is much new

Win32-specific

code that has not been tested extensively. Please test it
thoroughly before using it in production.

Should I change it to Marc's version?

This is much better. However I would still remove the phrase 'has not
been tested extensively'. I've been testing almost continuously since
the port became available around March, and so have a lot of others. I
quit around July because it seemed to be a waste of time (most
everything works fine).

Is it really a good idea to imply that any code is released without
extensive testing? Either 8.0 is release quality or it isn't. If it
isn't, delay the release until it is. If there are (valid) concerns
about the win32 specific codebase, let's put together some formal tests
and knock those out of the way.

Merlin

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

On Thursday 26 August 2004 12:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

"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"

Wow, that is good!
Should I change it to Marc's version?

As long as 'although' is correctly spelled.... :-)
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Lamar Owen wrote:

On Thursday 26 August 2004 12:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

"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"

Wow, that is good!
Should I change it to Marc's version?

As long as 'although' is correctly spelled.... :-)

Ya ya, I'm lazy :)

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.

Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I mean this is the
first release of the Win32 code. Anybody who would be willing to put it
in production without extensive testing deserves everything they get.

Then again we are talking about people who willinging use Windows as the
primary platform. Forget I brought it up.

I think there is concern that if the Win32 port is buggy that it will
give the project a bad reputation. It will probably be distributed to
many who have never used PostgreSQL before.

Since I imagine 99.9% of Windows users are going to use pginstaller to
install it ... has anyone looked into putting a WARNING pop up window as
part of the install itself? Or does such already exist?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

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

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on all Unix
platforms combined, though they might not be testing as thoroughly as
Unix.

Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I mean this is the
first release of the Win32 code. Anybody who would be willing to put it
in production without extensive testing deserves everything they get.

Then again we are talking about people who willinging use Windows as the
primary platform. Forget I brought it up.

I think there is concern that if the Win32 port is buggy that it will
give the project a bad reputation. It will probably be distributed to
many who have never used PostgreSQL before.

Since I imagine 99.9% of Windows users are going to use pginstaller to
install it ... has anyone looked into putting a WARNING pop up window as
part of the install itself? Or does such already exist?

There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to add one for
final release.

-- 
  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

I'm testing it, with borland WiNXP/c++ builder 6.0 / zeos 6.1.5 /
postgresql 8.0 win32 beta1

i'm porting some aplications that use as db postgresql 7.2.4 to 8.0 and
i'm using win32 version to do that port. In future Linux version will be
used.
For now i'm happy with results. The database have 94 tables, many views
and functions associated to triggers.

I'd like to know if exists some benchmark tool do postgresql that i can use?

Regards
Luis Rodrigues

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

If you are afraid of the quality of the windows port, then label it as a
BETA.

When everyone is fully satisfied that the kinks have been worked out,
call it a RELEASE.

It is a bad practice to use the world as a BETA test without their
knowledge.

Even as a BETA, it will be plenty popular. In 6 months, after all the
little idiosyncrasies have perked up to the surface and been fixed, then
release it as a formal RELEASE with a big fanfare.

IMO-YMMV.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Marc
G. Fournier
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Tom Lane; Rob Butler; Dennis Bjorklund;
Richard Huxton; Andrew Dunstan; Neil Conway; PostgreSQL Win32
port list; PostgreSQL-development
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Win32 release warning

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

Also, we probably have more beta testers on Win32 than on

all Unix

platforms combined, though they might not be testing as

thoroughly

as Unix.

Maybe I am just being dense, but isn't this obvious? I

mean this is

the first release of the Win32 code. Anybody who would be

willing to

put it in production without extensive testing deserves everything
they get.

Then again we are talking about people who willinging use

Windows as

the primary platform. Forget I brought it up.

I think there is concern that if the Win32 port is buggy

that it will

give the project a bad reputation. It will probably be

distributed to

many who have never used PostgreSQL before.

Since I imagine 99.9% of Windows users are going to use
pginstaller to
install it ... has anyone looked into putting a WARNING pop
up window as
part of the install itself? Or does such already exist?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services

(http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to add one for
final release.

Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at least reminds them
about reporting bugs and where to do so? I'd hate to see 1000 ppl
install, 90% see bugs adn never have them reported :(

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to add one for
final release.

Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at least reminds them
about reporting bugs and where to do so? I'd hate to see 1000 ppl
install, 90% see bugs adn never have them reported :(

Yes, I was thinking of that, and of telling them they may need to
upgrade more frequently than normal 8.0.0 users to fix win32 bugs as we
find them. In fact, the idea I was thinking of is to have pginstaller
update from current cvs more frequently than we make minor releases as
we have done during beta. That way, people can get win32 fixes faster.

Also, maybe we should encourage them to subscribe to announce so we can
announce any Win32 fix releases we might need. They probably aren't
used to that procedure.

-- 
  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

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to add one for
final release.

Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at least reminds them
about reporting bugs and where to do so? I'd hate to see 1000 ppl
install, 90% see bugs adn never have them reported :(

Yes, I was thinking of that, and of telling them they may need to
upgrade more frequently than normal 8.0.0 users to fix win32 bugs as we
find them. In fact, the idea I was thinking of is to have pginstaller
update from current cvs more frequently than we make minor releases as
we have done during beta. That way, people can get win32 fixes faster.

Also, maybe we should encourage them to subscribe to announce so we can
announce any Win32 fix releases we might need. They probably aren't
used to that procedure.

Having installed enough Windows software over the years (unfortunately),
how about adding a 'register for annoucements' with a textbox to
auto-subscribe to the list if they so choose? Instead of making them go
through opening their mail reader and having to send off the message ...
my experience with most Windows users is that 'the least amount of work
required' means the most likely they will do it :(

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

There is already one for the beta. I don't see a need to

add one for

final release.

Might be an idea ... if nothing else, something that at

least reminds them

about reporting bugs and where to do so? I'd hate to see 1000 ppl
install, 90% see bugs adn never have them reported :(

Yes, I was thinking of that, and of telling them they may need to
upgrade more frequently than normal 8.0.0 users to fix win32

bugs as we

find them. In fact, the idea I was thinking of is to have

pginstaller

update from current cvs more frequently than we make minor

releases as

we have done during beta. That way, people can get win32

fixes faster.

Also, maybe we should encourage them to subscribe to

announce so we can

announce any Win32 fix releases we might need. They probably aren't
used to that procedure.

Having installed enough Windows software over the years
(unfortunately),
how about adding a 'register for annoucements' with a textbox to
auto-subscribe to the list if they so choose? Instead of
making them go
through opening their mail reader and having to send off the
message ...
my experience with most Windows users is that 'the least
amount of work
required' means the most likely they will do it :(

Right. So how would you get the email address, without starting the mail
reader?

We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put their email
address in there in some way...

//Magnus

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Right. So how would you get the email address, without starting the mail
reader?

have them enter one in a text box?

We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put their email
address in there in some way...

Sorry, I didn't mean no email address ... I meant having a text box on in
pginstaller itself that would auto-mail that out ... a link to the
subscribe option(s) at the web site would be perfect too ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Right. So how would you get the email address, without

starting the mail

reader?

have them enter one in a text box?

We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put

their email

address in there in some way...

Sorry, I didn't mean no email address ... I meant having a
text box on in
pginstaller itself that would auto-mail that out ...

Don't think that's going to work. You need th emailserver. In most
cases, you need the login for the mailserver. Most companies and
nowadays a lot of home ISPs block outbound SMTP unless you go through
their authenticated servers.

a link to the
subscribe option(s) at the web site would be perfect too ...

That one can work, assuming we have a web form somewhere people can
subscribe from.

//Magnus

On August 26, 2004 01:06 pm, Magnus Hagander wrote:

pginstaller itself that would auto-mail that out ...

Don't think that's going to work. You need th emailserver. In most
cases, you need the login for the mailserver. Most companies and
nowadays a lot of home ISPs block outbound SMTP unless you go through
their authenticated servers.

a link to the
subscribe option(s) at the web site would be perfect too ...

That one can work, assuming we have a web form somewhere people can
subscribe from.

//Magnus

Have the installer automagiclay http-post the required info (that they filled
in) ?

--
Darcy Buskermolen
Wavefire Technologies Corp.
ph: 250.717.0200
fx: 250.763.1759
http://www.wavefire.com

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 15:52, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Also, maybe we should encourage them to subscribe to

announce so we can

announce any Win32 fix releases we might need. They probably aren't
used to that procedure.

Having installed enough Windows software over the years
(unfortunately),
how about adding a 'register for annoucements' with a textbox to
auto-subscribe to the list if they so choose? Instead of
making them go
through opening their mail reader and having to send off the
message ...
my experience with most Windows users is that 'the least
amount of work
required' means the most likely they will do it :(

Right. So how would you get the email address, without starting the mail
reader?

We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put their email
address in there in some way...

All we need to do is and in some of the klez/sobig tech and not only can
we subscribe them, but we should be able to read through their address
book and subscribe 50 of their closest friends without any prompting at
all :-)

Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Magnus Hagander wrote:

Right. So how would you get the email address, without

starting the mail

reader?

have them enter one in a text box?

We could add a checkbox that takes them to a webpage that permits
subscription. But they are certainly going to need to put

their email

address in there in some way...

Sorry, I didn't mean no email address ... I meant having a
text box on in
pginstaller itself that would auto-mail that out ...

Don't think that's going to work. You need th emailserver. In most
cases, you need the login for the mailserver. Most companies and
nowadays a lot of home ISPs block outbound SMTP unless you go through
their authenticated servers.

a link to the
subscribe option(s) at the web site would be perfect too ...

That one can work, assuming we have a web form somewhere people can
subscribe from.

Yup, that is easy to do ... you just go to the mj_wwwuser form with the
right args to tellit what mailing list ... you can easy tell i twhat
userid if you can get that somehow from the OS ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Bruce Momjian wrote:

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.

What about: ... Unix like platforms ...

Regards
Gaetano Mendola

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Robert Treat wrote:

All we need to do is and in some of the klez/sobig tech and not only can
we subscribe them, but we should be able to read through their address
book and subscribe 50 of their closest friends without any prompting at
all :-)

We could, but make sure its in the License Agreement so that its legal :)

And, in case you didn't know, this has happened ... there was a company
that distributed software that in there terms&conditions (that you had to
agree to), there was a clause that said you agreed to them mailing out to
those ppl it finds in your addressbook :)

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

OK, release notes updated.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

-- 
  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

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Neil Conway wrote:

Bruce Momjian wrote:

I think we need to actually find someone who reports a problem before
stating something. I don't see how we can assume it is unstable without
some feedback.

My count is three votes in favour of adding a disclaimer (myself, Tom,
Marc -- possibly Alvaro) and only one vote against (Bruce). Does anyone
think we ought to ask for opinions on -hackers? If not, I'll submit a
doc patch adding the disclaimer to the release notes.

Is the release notes even the right place for it? When you read the
release notes after 8.1 is released, do you want to read that Win32
had possible problems in 8.0? Perhaps we should mention it in the
release announcement instead?

When is the last time you saw a Windows read release notes? I personally
don't think its near obvious enough :(

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664