"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, the bottom line that's concerning me here is whether
>> throwing errors is going to push anyone's application into an
>> unfixable corner. I'm somewhat encouraged that your Circuit
>> Courts software can adapt to it, since that's certainly one of
>> the larger and more complex applications out there. Or at least I
>> would be if you had actually verified that the CC code was okay
>> with the recently-proposed patch versions. Do you have any
>> thorough tests you can run against whatever we end up with?
> To test the new version of this patch, we would need to pick an
> application release, and use the patch through the development,
> testing, and staging cycles, We would need to look for all
> triggers needing adjustment, and make the necessary changes. We
> would need to figure out which triggers were important to cover,
> and ensure that testing covered all of them.
> Given the discussions with my new manager this past week, I'm
> pretty sure we can work this into a release that would complete
> testing and hit pilot deployment in something like three months,
> give or take a little. I can't actually make any promises on that
> until I talk to her next week.
After a couple meetings, I have approval to get this into an
application release currently in development. Assuming that your
patch from the 13th is good for doing the testing, I think I can
post test results in about three weeks. I'll also work on a
follow-on patch to add couple paragraphs and an example of the issue
to the docs by then.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Garick Hamlin||Date: 2012-01-20 17:32:45|
|Subject: Re: JSON for PG 9.2|
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2012-01-20 17:14:47|
|Subject: Re: Command Triggers|