| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Releasing in September |
| Date: | 2016-01-22 18:14:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20160122181443.GB1276@awork2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-01-22 08:40:28 -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Ideally reviewers shouldn't be doing any testing, because the tests
> that are part of the patch should answer every question they would
> have, but I don't see that happening until we have a separate
> automation-only target that we don't care how long it takes to run.
I think that's completely wrong.
Yes, more tests are good, and we need a place for longer running
tests. But assuming that every patch author will create a testsuite that
covers every angle is just about akin to assuming every submitter will
deliver perfect, bug free code. And we know how well that turns out.
I think actively trying to break a feature, and postgres in general, is
one of the most important tasks of reviewers and testers. And with that
I don't mean trying to run "make check". Look e.g. at the tests Jeff
Janes has performed, what the recent plug tests of Tomas Vondra brought
to light, or at what the full page write checker tool of Heikki's
showed.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-01-22 18:16:06 | Re: Releasing in September |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-01-22 16:54:00 | Re: Fwd: Re: [DOCS] Document Upper Limit for NAMEDATELEN in pgsql 9.5+ |