Re: Two weeks to feature freeze - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: scott.marlowe [mailto:scott.marlowe@ihs.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 12:25 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; Tom Lane; Jason Earl; PostgreSQL-development
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Two weeks to feature freeze
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > Vendor A: "We think our tool is pretty solid and our end
> users hardly
> > ever turn up any bugs."
> >
> > Vendor B:" We think our tool is pretty solid and our 8500 tests
> > currently show only 3 defects with the released version,
> and these are
> > low impact issues.  To view our current database of issues,
> log onto
> > web form <page>."
> >
> > Which tool would you prefer to install?
>
> The one I've tested and found to meet my needs, both now and
> by providing
> fixes when I needed it.
>
> Real world example:  We run Crystal Reports Enterprise
> edition where I
> work.  It's tested thouroughly (supposedly) and has all kinds of QA.
> However, getting it to work right and stay up is a nightmare.
>  It's taken
> them almost a year to get around to testing against the OpenLDAP LDAP
> server we use.  The box said "LDAP V3 compliant" and they
> assured us that
> it was.  Well, it doesn't work with our LDAP V3 compliant
> LDAP server at
> all, and the problem is something they can't fix for months
> because it
> doesn't fit into their test cycle.
>
>
> Real world example: Postgresql aggregates in subselects.
> Someone found a bug in subselects in Postgresql with inner
> references to
> outter aggregates.  The postgresql team delivered a patch in
> less than a
> week.  User tested it and it works.
>
> I'm not against testing and all, but as one of the many beta
> testers for
> Postgresql, I do feel a bit insulted by your attitude that only a
> cohesive, organized testing effort can result in a reliable product.

Let me rephrase it:
"Only a  cohesive, organized testing effort can result in a product that
is proven reliable."

Without such an effort, it is only an educated guess as to whether the
product is reliable or not.  The data is the most valuable software
component in an organization.  It is worth more than the hardware and it
is worth more than the software.  If you are going to trust one billion
dollars worth of corporate data on a software system, you ought to
ensure that the system has been carefully tested.  I don't think that is
just an opinion.  It's simply common sense.
> I take my support of Postgresql seriously, and answer many
> questions every
> week in the general, sql, and performance mailing lists.  I'm
> not paid to
> do it, I stay at work an extra hour or so each day to "pay
> for it."  I
> test every beta and RC release on our dataset at work, and
> with a test
> load to make sure it works for us, and it does.
>
> I offered to beta test for Crystal Reports and was told they weren't
> interested, they can do it in house.  Their support, like many big
> commercial houses, is designed more to make my boss's boss
> happy, not me,
> and it shows every day in how they fail to provide timely support for
> their product while playing CYA to the higherups.

A long test cycle does result in a slower patch.  But when you get the
patch, it is going to work and not introduce new problems.

The resistance to testing is typical of programmers.  The PostgreSQL
group is a group of programmers.  I don't think I can change anyone's
mind, since the most significant people on the list don't think it is
worth the bother.

Therefore, I am going to stop harping on it.