Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, decibel(at)decibel(dot)org, bruno(at)wolff(dot)to
Subject: Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto
Date: 2007-02-11 17:30:45
Message-ID: 1792.1171215045@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> writes:
> How about a rule that says no new ode without a test?

We've got way too many tests like that already, ie, a bunch of
mostly-redundant functional tests of isolated new features.
Most of the code I worry about there isn't any simple way to
test from the SQL level --- the fact that a query gives the
right answer doesn't prove it went through a particular part
of the planner, for example.

I think we need some intelligent test design, not tests thrown in
to meet a rule.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-02-11 17:35:17 Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3
Previous Message Hideyuki Kawashima 2007-02-11 17:12:45 Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS