From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
---|---|
To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jan Wieck" <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: numeric/decimal docs bug? |
Date: | 2002-04-13 06:31:35 |
Message-ID: | 006101c1e2b4$dd32f720$0200a8c0@SOL |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Jan, regression is not a test of the level a developer would use to make
> sure his code works. It is merely to make sure the install works on a
> limited number of cases.
News to me! If anything, I don't think a lot of the current regression
tests are comprehensive enough! For the SET/DROP NOT NULL patch I
submitted, I included a regression test that tests every one of the
preconditions in my code - that way if anything gets changed or broken,
we'll find out very quickly.
I personally don't have a problem with the time taken to regression test -
and I think that trimming the numeric test _might_ be a false economy. Who
knows what's going to turn around and bite us oneday?
> Having seen zero reports of any numeric
> failures since we installed it, and seeing it takes >10x times longer
> than the other tests, I think it should be paired back. Do we really
> need 10 tests of each complex function? I think one would do the trick.
A good point tho, I didn't submit a regression test that tries to ALTER 3
different non-existent tables to check for failures - one test was enough...
Chris
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-04-13 06:33:51 | Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachabilityattributes |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-13 06:21:52 | Re: Scanner performance (was Re: 7.3 schedule) |