Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No, you have that backwards. The burden of proof is on those who want
> >> it to show that it's now safe. The situation is not different than it
> >> was before, except that we can now actually point to a specific bug that
> >> did exist, whereas the original concern was just an unfocused one that
> >> the code path hadn't been adequately exercised. That concern is now
> >> even more pressing than it was.
>
> > I am not sure how you prove the non-existance of a bug. Ideas?
>
> What I'm looking for is some concentrated testing. The fact that some
> people once in a while SIGTERM a backend doesn't give me any confidence
> in it.
OK, here is an opportunity for someone to run tests to get this into
8.2. The code already exists in CVS, but we need testing to enable it.
I would think running a huge workload and killing it over and over again
would be a good test.
-- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
