Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto
Date
Msg-id 1792.1171215045@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto  ("D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>)
Responses Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto
List pgsql-hackers
"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Hideyuki Kawashima"
Date:
Subject: Re: Acclerating INSERT/UPDATE using UPS
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3