Re: Concurrency testing

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Concurrency testing
Date: 2009-10-08 01:01:52
Message-ID: 603c8f070910071801t60f523abi3d7f7607a31ba69e@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:33 PM, David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> wrote:
>> Do we need to restrict ourselves to core?  Developers already need
>> flex and bison, which aren't needed when installing from the tarball.
>> Couldn't we also have "make dev-check" that has higher requirements
>> than "make check" does, but does a more thorough job?
>
> flex and bison are not Perl modules.

True, but so what?

I don't really see what's wrong with using Perl modules that are
likely to be installed most places and easy to obtain where not, if it
makes writing a test framework much easier. But I also think that we
should not get bogged down on exactly which tools to use - it seems to
me the first thing is to find someone who is willing to do the work.
If someone makes an AWESOME test suite that uses a module which is a
little too adventurous, we can probably find a way of adjusting it
after the fact so as to remove the dependency (I fancy myself fairly
good at this sort of thing, where Perl is concerned). But if we argue
about tools now, we're just going to discourage anyone from taking a
stab at it.

Just MHO, of course.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2009-10-08 01:07:50 Re: COPY enhancements
Previous Message Michael Renner 2009-10-08 00:39:43 Re: Performance testing framework..