> > (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... ;)
//
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
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
-Original Message-
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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?
> > 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 offic
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 wi
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 wo
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
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you search
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 un
> 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 - an
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_
11 matches
Mail list logo
