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

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto
Date
Msg-id 200702101036.58691.peter_e@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto  ("D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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...

Shouldn't we at least add the one or two exemplary statements that 
failed so we have some sort of coverage of the problem?

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Magnus Hagander
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] How can I use 2GB of shared buffers on Windows?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Ooops ... seems we need a re-release pronto