Re: Recovery Test Framework

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Guillaume Smet
<guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I disagree at least with hot standby. I've been using/testing (as
>> have others) it under a variety of workloads for several months now
>> with no issues outside of corrected issues in the very early patches.
>> Also, a relatively few amount of people update/build from cvs
>> frequently so being committed late in the release cycle isn't as
>> important as you are claiming...the real 'wider net' testing happens
>> when the beta period begins.
>
> Update/build from CVS != Update/build from CVS + apply the replication
> patches + test them explicitely.
>
> That said, I didn't have the time to test them myself so I feel also
> responsible for that.

In the general case I think plenty of people update and build from CVS
regularly. It's great that the FSM has been in for a couple months
before the beta, we've uncovered a couple problems which could easily
have slipped through the betas for example.

In the case of hot standby and replication I'm not really sure that
logic applies. It takes quite a lot of work to test these features and
they don't turn up problems in other areas when you're not running
them. So I doubt it would really have helped in this case.

--
greg