Dann Corbit wrote:
> > Adding a new platform--especially a platform as diverse from
> > the rest of PostgreSQL's supported platforms as Windows--is
> > what adds the work. Testing the new platform is relatively
> > easy. All you need to do is to start using the Win32 version
> > with real live data.
>
> That is not testing. Using the world as your beta team seems to be a
> business model used by a few software giants that is largely frowned
> upon. I would think that there is an opportunity to do things
> differently. [Read 'properly'].
>
> We (at CONNX Solutions Inc.) have a formal release procedure that
> includes many tens of thousands of automated tests using dozens of
> different platforms. There are literally dozens of machines (I would
> guess 70 or so total) running around the clock for 7 days before we even
> know if we have a release candidate. The QA team is distinct from the
> development team, and if they say "FLOP!" the release goes nowhere. No
> formal release until QA passes it.
>
> If there is no procedure for PostgreSQL of this nature, then there
> really needs to be. I am sure that MySQL must have something in place
> like that. Their "Crash-Me" test suite shows (at least) that they have
> put a large effort into testing.
One thing you might be missing is that we have a _very_ close
relationship with our users. We can send out code and debug/fix things
much faster than a company can that ships binaries. If you look at the
changes that go into minor releases (post X.X.0 releases) you will see
very few fixes, and the ones we do fine are usually for very esoteric
problem cases. Maybe it isn't ideal, but given our limited resources,
it works very well.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
