On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> > I don't understand why this is particularly difficult to regresssion
>> > test. It actually is comparatively simple?
>>
>> If it is, great. I previously wrote this email:
>>
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZ=vZriJMxLkqi_V0jg4k4LEAPmwUSC6RWXS5MquXUJNA@mail.gmail.com
>>
>> Alvaro came up with a way of addressing the second point I raised
>> there, which I'm quite pleased about, but AFAIK there's been no
>> progress on the first one. Maybe I missed something?
>
> I unfortunately don't think so. And that sounds like a completely
> reasonable criticism.
I'm glad you agree. If you can find a way to address that point, I
can live with the rest of it. I don't think it's dumb to be concerned
about features that increase the cost of adding more features. But
what really concerns me is that that code won't be well-tested, and if
there are cases missing or somebody forgets to do it altogether, it's
very likely that we won't notice. That seems like a huge problem from
where I sit.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
