Re: [pgsql-www] Supported Windows version for the Windows installer

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 10:55 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

On Friday, April 28, 2017, Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <adsmail@wars-nicht.de> wrote:

The Windows download site:


https://www.postgresql.org/download/windows/


Does not list the supported Windows versions. Someone just sent a question to de@postgresql.org, asking if Windows 10 is supported.


Can the website be updated, and include the supported Windows versions?

(Why yes, I am catching up to old email, what makes you think that?)

This seems like a very good idea.

Dave, do you think this is something that's doable? This is not information that changes *that* often after all, it can probably be reasonably maintained manually if you can get it onto the appropriate checklist?

If it's too much to easily update manually, can we set up some sort of feed from the EDB pages that we can pull and automate the update?

It would probably be kinda messy to try to put the info on that page. It can be found at https://www.enterprisedb.com/services/edb-supported-products-and-platforms#postgresql.

Not sure that's more messy than we have for others?

Pretty sure it would be. I can work up a patch though if you want.

Sure, please do.

I was envisioning something like a simple matrix showing earliest and newest version of Windows supported for each major tree or something like that. But perhaps you had something more detailed in mind?

How about the attached? 

We really should have a bigger difference between <h2> and <h3>, but that's not the job of this patch. And I think having the details trumps that part.

In general this looks good, I think.

Would people be confused if we just drop the "Windows" part, and just say "2008R2" etc? And maybe just say "64-bit windows platforms" in the header? There's a huge amount of repetition of that. 

We should probably ask for the same info from the BigSQL people, and I'm worried of information overload then.

For the linux installers on redhat/debian/whatnot, it would be good if the debian page only listed debian versions, redhat only listed redhat/centos/oel etc. I realize that means a bit more duplication, but I think that would make it a lot easier for the user.

For the linux installers I think ther'es another problem as well -- they're listed under "other linux", but AFAICT there isn't actually a single platform that falls under the "other linux" supported on any version.  This is of course a pre-existing problem -- the previous text contradicts itself already.