Re: [sferac@bo.nettuno.it: Re: [HACKERS] BUG: NOT boolfield kills backend] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Thomas G. Lockhart |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [sferac@bo.nettuno.it: Re: [HACKERS] BUG: NOT boolfield kills backend] |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3605DFE3.91E85121@alumni.caltech.edu Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [sferac@bo.nettuno.it: Re: [HACKERS] BUG: NOT boolfield kills backend] (Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
> If the queries which produce the problem are not exotic, then why > should they not go there? I would prefer a regression that took half > an hour or longer on modern hardware yet screened the code to a degree > that I could have reasonable faith in an installation if it passed the > regression. Well, we shouldn't get caught up in semantics, but in this case it gets to the heart of the intent: the regression test is designed to test if known-good features are still good and behavior on one installation matches behavior on another, not to ensure or document that known-bad features are still bad. Another test (or other docs, or ??) might be a good idea, and we could certainly benefit from it I'm sure, but the regression test is not where that should go. As you point out above, "I could have reasonable faith in an installation if it passed the regression", and that is true; if the regression test passes you can have reasonable faith that your installation is a good Postgres installation. It won't ensure that your Postgres installation does everything you want it to, and no test can do that :) > As it stands, I had to back off of a recommendation even > with a promise of my maintenance. I'll reiterate that quite common > queries are causing NULL pointers to get chased even in non-beta code. Sure. And thanks for pointing it out. And we'll work on it. And we'll be glad to accept patches from any source which would fix it immediately. > When someone snoozes, our tests should alert us to that. I think to > ensure reliability, the regression must be as complete as possible. > It should work as an acceptance criterion. As it stands, it doesn't > test severely enough for much if any confidence in deployment. ?? See above. The regression test does exactly what is intended for it. If there is another kind of test you would like to propose or contribute, we'd certainly consider it. > > though since it has been broken forever it doesn't count as a > > "must-fix" bug and may not make it into the v6.4 release. But it > > does count as a "should-fix" bug, and it's possible it could be > fixed for v6.4... > Seg faults in the backend for standard queries would count as must-fix > from my view. The only justification for failure in the non-exotic > queries is that we are ignorant of the bug's existence. Once we are > aware, fixing these should become priority one. > > \begin{soapbox} > > At the very time ESR is lecturing the software community that open- > source is the way things should work, we have the opportunity to > support or refute his claims based on how seriously we take repair > and maintenance where non-exotic queries induce damage and failure. > > Think about the free UNIX-like kernels. They are now gaining accept- > ance mostly because they keep running even when folk beat on them. > We have glass jaws, and it shows. Let's take the required steps to > firm them up. > > \end{soapbox} Well, that's all well and good. The way Open Source works is that _everyone_ has the tools available to them to make the product better, and some folks will use those tools to contribute back. Not everyone has to or can, and there is a role for those offering encouragement as well as those offering actual code. But Open Source doesn't happen without user participation, and the next version is never the last version. Postgres has undergone a tremendous evolutionary improvement over the last two years, and it's actually encouraging that we get darn few reports of problems with simple (though uncommon) cases such as yours. Don't panic: yours is the first problem report of this failure, and if you're disappointed in the response please remember that you brought it up only three days ago. And that you've gotten two or three responses from the "support team" since then. And we haven't asked for money. All in all, a great bargain :) Regards. - Tom
pgsql-hackers by date: