| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Manfred Koizar" <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: TESTING (was: RE: More vacuum.c refactoring ) |
| Date: | 2004-06-11 21:35:22 |
| Message-ID: | 18780.1086989722@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
>> --- and no I have zero confidence that passing the regression
>> tests proves anything, because all those prior bugs passed
>> the regression tests.
> Then why didn't those bugs get added to the regression?
Because there wasn't any reasonable way to make them reproducible.
The set of things we can test in the regression tests is only a small
fraction of the interesting properties of Postgres. This is
unfortunate but ranting about "standard practice" doesn't change it.
> I seem to recall that someone was porting the NIST suite to PostgreSQL.
> What ever happened to that effort?
It was done and we fixed a couple of bugs based on it (the one I can
think of offhand had to do with semantics of aggregate functions in
sub-selects). I don't think there's anything more to be learned there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dann Corbit | 2004-06-11 21:36:50 | Re: TESTING (was: RE: More vacuum.c refactoring ) |
| Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2004-06-11 21:29:28 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces |