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 18361.1170789365@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto  (Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org>)
Responses Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jim@nasby.net>)
Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Jim Nasby <decibel@decibel.org> writes:
> On Feb 6, 2007, at 12:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... massive expansion of the tests doesn't seem justified

> What about the idea that's been floated in the past about a -- 
> extensive mode for regression testing that would (generally) only be  
> used by the build farm. That would mean others wouldn't have to  
> suffer through extremely long make check's.

> Or is there another reason not to expand the tests?

I'm not concerned so much about the runtime as the development and
maintenance effort...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto
Next
From: "Merlin Moncure"
Date:
Subject: Re: getting status transaction error