Let me look at what makes sense there, I am open to it.
On 7/26/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
